HACKWORTH

v.

HIATT, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. Int'l Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1968)
  …ring damages attributable to the enforcement of the tying and exclusive dealing provisions-against them on the sole ground that they participated in the formulation of other anticompetitive provisions in the agreement. Cf. Moore v. Mead Service Co., 340 U. S. 944 (1951), vacating 184 F. 2d 338 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1950). However, if Midas could show, which it has quite clearly not done at this stage of the litigation, that petitioners actually participated in the formulation of the entire agreement, trading off…
• Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Co., 348 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1954)
  …F. 2d 338. We granted a petition for certiorari, vacated that judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U. S. 211. See Moore v. Mead Service Co., 340 U. S. 944. On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals receded from its former position, reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint, and remanded the case for trial. 190 F. 2d 540. Respondent contends that the so-called boycott justified its price cutting.…
• Moore v. Mead Serv. Co., 190 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1951)
  …ff, by his own conduct and participation in an illegal boycott, had created a condition which resulted in the price discrimination complained of and for that reason could not maintain the action. 10 Cir., 184 F. 2d 338. Upon petition for certiorari, 340 U.S. 944, 71 S.Ct. 528, the Supreme Court remanded the case with directions that it be given further consideration in the light of Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259. Although the facts in the Kiefer case were substant…