BRUNER ET UX.

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Nw. Power Prods., Inc. v. Omark Indus., Inc., 576 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …ddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F. 2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974). One other circuit court has recognized a Pick-Barth cause of action under the Sherman Act, Perryton Wholesale, Inc. v. Pioneer Distributing Co., 353 F. 2d 618 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 945, 86 S.Ct. 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966). That decision did not use per se language. One district court, however, has expressly applied a per se test, holding no anticompetitive effect need be shown. Albert Sauter Co. v. Richard S. Sauter Co., 368 F.…
• George R. Whitten, JR., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974)
  …he defendant in Pick-Barth, id. at 881. Judges Woodbury and Aldrich concurred but declined to do so on the basis of the Pick-Barth rule. Id. at 885. Perryton Wholesale, Inc. v. Pioneer Distributing Co., 353 F. 2d 618 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 945, 86 S.Ct. 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966), relied largely on Pick-Barth and Atlantic Heel. The most recent case, C. Albert Sauter Co. v. Richard S. Sauter Co., 368 F.Supp. 501 (E.D.Pa.1973), appeal dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b) of F.R.A.P., No. 73— 2…
• Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Shell OIL Co., 626 F.2d 549 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …xtreme methods of unfair competition, as a per se violation of the Act. A Pick-Barth type cause of action was also recognized by the Tenth Circuit in Perryton Wholesale, Inc. v. Pioneer Distributing Co., 353 F. 2d 618 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 945, 86 S.Ct. 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966), although that opinion did not employ per se terminology. To our awareness, only one other case, C. Albert Sauter Co. v. Richard S. Sauter Co., 368 F.Supp. 501 (E.D.Pa.1973), has expressly applied a per se analy…