TURPIN

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1977)
  …d States, 332 U. S. 392; United [*653] Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451; Phillips v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 376 F. Supp. 1250 (Md. 1973). Janel Sales Corp. v. Lanvin Parfums, Inc., 396 F. 2d 398 (CA2 1968), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 938; Katz Drug Co. v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co., 6 F. Supp. 212 (WD Mo. 1933). In litigation between a franchisee and a franchisor the former may challenge the validity of various contract provisions under federal law, while the latter may rely heavily on…
• Response OF Carolina, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., 537 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1976)
  …m and resolute enforcement” language of the Court has followed an erratic course. We chart it to explain our holdings, infra, on the existence of a violation here. Janel Sales Corp. v. Lanvin Parfums, Inc., 2 Cir. 1968, 396 F. 2d 398, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 938, 89 S.Ct. 303, 21 L.Ed. 275, involved an express contractual customer restriction where the “retailer” agreed to sell certain “commodities” only to “consumers for use.” Plaintiffs argued that this was a per se violation of the Sherman Act § 1. The j…
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 506 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …lers to consumers, and that Schwinn’s “firmness” in these respects was grounded upon the communicated danger of termination. 388 U.S. at 372, 87 S.Ct. at 1862. In Janel Sales Corp. v. Lanvin Parfums, Inc., 2 Cir. 1968, 396 F. 2d 398, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 938, 89 S.Ct. 303, 21 L.Ed.2d 275, for example, the court refused to find a contract clause prohibiting sales of Lanvin products by its retailers “except to consumers for use”, a per se violation because the evidence was conflicting with respect to whet…