WHITE ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS KITSAP AUTOMATIC DISPENSER CO., ET AL.

v.

WASHINGTON

Citator

Cited By

• White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1963)
  …International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 (1947), and United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319 (1947) (tying arrangements) ; Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, supra; Nationwide Trailer Rental System v. United States, 355 U. S. 10 (1957), affirming 156 F. Supp. 800 (D. C. D. Kan. 1957), and United States v. National Lead Co., supra (division of markets). The same rule applies to the contracts here. The offered justification must fail because it involves a contention contrary…
• United States v. Penn-Olin Chem. Co., 378 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1964)
  …v. United States, 341 U. S. 593, where world trade territories were allocated among an American, a British, and a French company through intercorporate arrangements called a “joint venture.” Nationwide Trailer Rental System, Inc., v. United States, 355 U. S. 10 (affirming 156 F. Supp. 800), held violative of the antitrust laws an agreement establishing exclusive territories for each member of an organization set up to regulate the one-way trailer rental industry and empowering a member to prevent any other…
• Worthen Bank & Tr. Co. v. Nat'l Bankamericard Inc., 485 F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1973)
  …61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949 (1941); Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Ass’n v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490 (1914); United States v. Nationwide Trailer Rental Systems, Inc., 156 F.Supp. 800 (D.Kan.), aff’d per curiam, 355 U.S. 10, 78 S.Ct. 11, 2 L.Ed.2d 20 (1957). Our reading of those cases does not permit us to reach the same conclusion. These cases fall into three general categories. The first category may be referred to as group boycott cases. In Eastern States Retail Lu…

  ← 1 / 2 →