SEDIVY ET AL.

v.

SUPERIOR HOME BUILDERS, INC. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Union Leader Corp. v. Newspapers OF NEW England Inc., 284 F.2d 582 (1st Cir. 1960)
  …trust action. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 939, 71 S.Ct. 487, 95 L.Ed. 678; Moore v. Mead Service Co., 10 Cir., 1951, 190 F. 2d 540, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 902, 72 S.Ct. 290, 96 L.Ed. 675.12 Nor can the use of unfair methods by a competitor automatically justify adopting comparable unfair methods. F. T. C. v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 1945, 324 U.S 746, 753, 65 S.Ct. 971, 89 L.Ed. 1338. However, it does n…
• Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Telephones, Inc., 931 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. 1991)
  …re not confined to those specifically set forth in the statute, the changing conditions defense is limited to circumstances which are similar to those named in the statute. Moore v. Mead Service Co., 190 F. 2d 540, 541 (10th Cir.1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 902, 72 S.Ct. 290, 96 L.Ed. 675 (1952). Therefore, the examples listed in the statute provide the fact finder with a guide by which it can determine whether the alleged changing conditions constitute a defense against a charge of price discrimination.…