JOHN M. DIMIDOWICH, DBA MICRO IMAGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BELL & HOWELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F. 2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.
Insert on page 1478 second column line 17 of 803 F. 2d before Nonetheless: “It will thus be rare for a court to infer a vertical combination solely from a business’s unilateral refusal to deal with distributors or customers who do not comply with certain conditions.”
Delete on page 1478 second column second line from bottom: “necessary to show a combination between himself and B & H” and replace with “necessary to infer a vertical combination from a unilateral refusal to deal.”
All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992)
-
Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Eden Servs., 823 F.2d 1215 (8th Cir. 1987)
-
Image Tech. Serv., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 903 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1990)
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 803 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1986)