BLINCOE ET UX.

v.

WATSON, ASSESSOR, ET AL.; HAWAIIAN OKE & LIQUORS, LTD. V. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC., ET AL.; GRAYSON V. UNITED STATES; LACOB V. UNITED STATES; STEIN V. LUKEN ET AL.; LAMPMAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.; LEWIS V. UNITED STATES; PRUESS, EXECUTOR, ET AL. V. HICKEL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; CUEVAS V. CALIFORNIA; WARRINER V. FERNANDEZ ET AL.; JONES V. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.; TUCKER V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …n the period of the applicable statute of limitations. United States v. Giacalone, 6 Cir. 1973, 477 F. 2d 1273; United States v. Grayson, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F. 2d 1073, cert. denied, 1970, 396 U.S. 1059, 90 S.Ct. 754, 24 L.Ed.2d 753, rehearing denied, 397 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 1114, 25 L.Ed.2d 415, and 399 U.S: 917, 90 S.Ct. 2191, 26 L.Ed.2d 576. The defendant’s sixth amendment claim also lacks merit because he was not subjected to a federal arrest until after the federal indictment.. United States v. Marion, 1…
• RON Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distribs., Inc., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …it can lead to undesirable results.” Bauer, supra, at 712. We have recognized, in Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., 416 F. 2d 71 (CA 9 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1062, 90 S.Ct. 752, 24 L.Ed.2d 755, rehearing denied, 397 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 1113, 25 L.Ed.2d 415 (1970), that the presence of a horizontal element does not require the use of a per se rule. Hawaiian Oke indicates that an inquiry must be made to determine whether there exists an anti-competitive purpose or effect.8…
• Trixler Brokerage Co. v. Ralston Purina Co., 505 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1974)
  …v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 503, 4 L.Ed.2d 505 (1960), and Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., 416 F. 2d 71 (CA9 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1062, 90 S.Ct. 752, 24 L.Ed.2d 755 (1970), rehearing denied, 397 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 1113, 25 L.Ed.2d 415. Appellant also concedes that the district court properly held that the standard for determining whether an arrangement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act is whether it is so inherently anti-competitive in purpose o…