KISER ET AL.

v.

BREAKS INTERSTATE PARK COMMISSION

Citator

Cited By (13 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…
• Int'l Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. W. Airlines, Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980)
  …we hold to be an unreasonable restraint of trade) was carried out by means of “speech,” does not create a basis for immunization. . But see Perryton Wholesale, Inc. v. Pioneer Distributing Co., 353 F. 2d 618, 621-22 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 945, 89 S.Ct. 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966) (conspiracy to suppress competition through the elimination of competition by unfair means is an unreasonable restraint of trade). . As discussed in Part V infra, Western also had a monopoly over the Twin Citie…