TIDEWATER OIL CO.

v.

LESSIG

Citator

Cited By (90 total)

• United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1965)
  …as no error and no prejudice. See Peel v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F. 2d 907, 912, cert. denied sub nom. Crane v. United States, 375 U.S. 896, 84 S.Ct. 174, 11 L.Ed.2d 125; United States v. Parness, 3 Cir., 1964, 331 F. 2d 703, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 1919, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045. This type of incident is more or less to be expected in a long trial and the way Judge Cashin handled it was entirely proper. To have admonished Van Allen in the presence of the jury would perhaps have given the jury…
• Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  …ould be— ‘to monopolize what?’ ”). Accordingly, we hold that proof of relevant market is requisite to a holding that 15 U.S.C. § 2 has been violated. Sowa cites cases that rely on Lessig v. Tidewater Oil Co., 327 F. 2d 459 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 1920, 12 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1964), a Sherman Act and Clayton Act case that arose from Tidewater’s cancellation of a service station lease and dealer contract with Lessig, for the proposition that proof of relevant market is dispensable in “atte…
• Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …its argument-Greyhound Computer Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 559 F. 2d 488 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 98 S.Ct. 782, 54 L.Ed.2d 790 (1978), and Lessig v. Tidewater Oil Co., 327 F. 2d 459 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 1920, 12 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1964)-was rejected by this court in Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 525 F. 2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1975). Coleman expressly held that definition of the relevant market was critical in § 2 attempt cases, specifically re…