CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. CO.

v.

SQUIRE, ADMINISTRATOR

Citator

Cited By

• Nw. Power Prods., Inc. v. Omark Indus., Inc., 576 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …ous and unfair means. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff rests its case on a slender line of decisions beginning with Albert Pick-Barth Co. v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 57 F. 2d 96 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 286 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288 (1932), which held somewhat similar conduct to be a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Because we reject the Pick-Barth teaching and agree with defendants that the holding of Burdett Sound, Inc. v. Altec Corp., 515…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• George R. Whitten, JR., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974)
  …its product, etc. All of them held that such conduct was illegal per se under section 1. The two oldest progenitors of this small family were our own decisions. In Albert Pick-Barth v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 57 F. 2d 96 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 286 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288 (1932), dealing with a case where the defendant was allied with other corporations, collectively a dominating factor in the trade in which plaintiff was engaged, we said that, “intent to eliminate a competitor . . . and…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Shell OIL Co., 626 F.2d 549 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …ices and business torts, this has not been the case, particularly as to the more recent and, in our view, the better authority. Some earlier decisions, notably Albert Pick-Barth v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 57 F. 2d 96 (1st Cir. 1932), cert. denied, 286 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288, admittedly support a contrary view. In that case the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor by unfair means violated the Sherman Act. Subsequently, the same court in Atla…