CHERRY ET AL.

v.

REID, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL; MINTON V. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT REPORTER OF SAN JACINTO COUNTY, TEXAS; AND BUKORSKY V. ILLINOIS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 829, 99 S.Ct. 103, 58 L.Ed.2d 122 (1978); Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. J. R. Simplot Co., 418 F. 2d 793, 806 (9th Cir. 1969); Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 231 F. 2d 356, 367, 368 (9th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 991, 76 S.Ct. 545, 100 L.Ed. 856 (1956).45 1. Primary-Line Competition Section 2(a) is concerned with the protection of competition on several levels. Inglis’ claim alleges adverse effects on so-called primary-line competition, i. e., competition with…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• H & B Equip. Co., Inc. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 577 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …is sufficient to note that such a plan makes Harco’s conduct explicable without reference to a “broader program” aimed at eliminating H&B from the market. See Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 231 F. 2d 356, 369 (9th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 991, 76 S.Ct. 545, 100 L.Ed. 856 (1956) (subsidiaries made independent pricing decisions); Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 327 F.Supp. 1267, 1271-1274 (C.D.Calif. 1971) (pattern of discounts shown but no conspiracy established), aff’d, 511 F. 2d…
• Cadigan v. Texaco, Inc., 492 F.2d 383 (9th Cir. 1974)
  …hat the defendant either knows the price being met is unlawful or that it is inherently unlawful. Standard Oil Co. v. Brown, 238 F. 2d 54 (5th Cir. 1956).3 See Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 231 F. 2d 356, 366 (9th Cir. 1955), cert. denied 350 U.S. 991, 76 S.Ct. 545, 100 L.Ed. 856 (1956). Plaintiff has offered no proof to suggest that the competitor’s prices were unlawful, much less that Texaco knew them to be such. Finally, appellant argues that the § 2(b) defense can be asserted only when the p…