LAUCHLI

v.

POOS, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE; MOORE V. WHIPPLE, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE; AND MCCRAY V. ARRAJ, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1973)
  …r market may be substantially lessened by the acquisition. The District Court held to the contrary, 332 F. Supp. 970 (1971), and we noted probable jurisdiction2 to determine whether the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in so deciding, 405 U. S. 952 (1972). We remand to the District Court for a proper assessment of Falstaff as a potential competitor. As stipulated by the parties, the relevant product market is the production and sale of beer, and the six New England States3 compose the geograph…
• Heublein, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 409 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1972)
  …es and brought suit to recover them. The Court of Common Pleas held that § 381 (a) protected Heublein from tax liability in South Carolina. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed. 257 S. C. 17, 183 S. E. 2d 710. We noted probable jurisdiction, 405 U. S. 952 (1972), and now affirm. We hold that Heublein’s activities within South Carolina exceed the minimum standards established in 15 U. S. C. § 381 (a), [*277] and that South Carolina may, pursuant to an otherwise valid regulatory scheme, compel Heublein…