KINNEAR-WEED CORP.

v.

HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO.

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• Karseal Corp. v. Richfield OIL Corp., 221 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1955)
  …but to aid in achieving the broad social object of the statute.” Fanchon & Marco v. Paramount Pictures, D.C.S.D.Cal.1951, 100 F.Supp. 84, 88, affirmed Fanchon & Marco, Inc., v. Paramount Pictures Inc., 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F. 2d 167, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 912, 75 S.Ct. 293. The object of the three main statutes, Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., comprising the antitrust laws, “is to protect ‘the interstate market’ ”, Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., D.C.S.D.Cal.1…
• Nw. Power Prods., Inc. v. Omark Indus., Inc., 576 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …e general purpose of the antitrust laws is to promote competition by freeing from monopoly a firm’s sources of labor and markets for its products. See Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 214 F. 2d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912, 75 S.Ct. 292, 99 L.Ed. 715 (1955) (patent infringement is not an injury [*89] cognizable under the Sherman Act); Yoerg, Misappropriation Claim, 22 Antitrust Bull, at 33. An instance where the result of antitrust law and unfair competition law enfo…
• Am. Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 521 F.2d 1230 (3d Cir. 1975)
  …n exclusive license. The district court found that HI exercised no such independent judgment. . 365 F.Supp. at 1090. . See United States v. Reading Co., 289 F. 2d 7 (3d Cir. 1961); Bryan v. Commissioner, 209 F. 2d 822 (5th Cir. 1954); cert. denied 348 U.S. 912, 75 S.Ct. 289, 99 L.Ed. 715 (1955). Cf. Chapman v. Potomac Chemical Co., 81 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 159 F. 2d 459 (1947). . See Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267, 90 S.Ct. 1011…