DEJESUS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, 585 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1978)
  …imply for creating a captive market in which it could and did charge a premium price. Even if the Posturegrid was a superior product, such an arrangement was unlawful. See Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co., 286 F. 2d 832 (4th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 963, 81 S.Ct. 1924, 6 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1961), a case very similar to this one. Regarding mattress spring units, Sealy takes the position that an essential element of a tying case is proof of actual foreclosure of competition. It cites Fortner Enterprises,…
• Hobart Bros. Co. v. Malcolm T. Gilliland, Inc., 471 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1973)
  …f Hobart’s intent to enforce its territorial restrictions, Six Twenty-Nine Productions, Inc. v. Rollins Telecasting, Inc., 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F. 2d 478, 485, 486, and Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Company, 4 Cir., 1960, 286 F. 2d 832, 837, cert. denied 366 U.S. 963, 81 S.Ct. 1924, 6 L.Ed.2d 1255. From the surrounding circumstantial evidence; the triers of fact were entitled to infer the necessary causal relationship between Hobart’s disparagement as used to enforce the illegal territorial restraints and Gillil…
• Cornwell Quality Tools Co. v. C. T. S. Co., Inc., 446 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …nated the distributorship because CTS refused to enter the illegal contract would make out its prima facie claim that Cornwell violated section 1 of the Sherman Act. (Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co. (4th Cir. 1960) 286 F. 2d 832, cert. denied (1960) 366 U.S. 963, 81 S.Ct. 1924, 6 L.Ed.2d 1255.) CTS offered no direct evidence to prove that Cornwell’s motivation in terminating the distributorship was CTS’s refusal to enter the exclusive dealing arrangement, but it did offer to prove that Cornwell had unsucces…