ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. ET AL.

v.

FINE

Citator

Cited By

• L.A. Draper & SON v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …destroy a competitor was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Id. at 90. Prior to Northwest, a line of cases flowing from the First Circuit decision in 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), had indicated that a conspiracy to engage in unfair competition was a per se violation of the antitrust laws. . Following the discussion in Northwest, the Page court broke the rule of reason test down into two p…
• Perryton Wholesale, Inc. v. Pioneer Distrib. Co. OF Kan., Inc., 353 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …ersion of its employees. Such elimination destroys rather than maintains competition, is an unreasonable restraint on trade, and violates the statute. See Albert Pick-Barth Co., Inc. v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 1 Cir., 57 F. 2d 96, certiorari denied 286 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 503, 76 L.Ed. 1288, and Atlantic Heel Co., Inc. v. Allied Heel Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 284 F. 2d 879. Perryton urges that the impact on interstate commerce is not substantial enough to invoke the application of the federal antitrust laws. The…
• Stifel v. Dain, 578 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …igned to eliminate plaintiff as a competitor in the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City area, and was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule laid down in 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), as limited by George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F. 2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2407, 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975). While § 1 of the Sherman Act in terms…