HALLMARK INDUSTRY

v.

REYNOLDS METALS CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (62 total)

• City OF Lake Wales v. Lamar Advertising Ass'n OF Lakeland, 399 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
  …rmly held that state laws implementing the federal Highway Beautification Act do not preempt local zoning ordinances banning billboards on federal-aid highways. Art Neon Co. v. City and County of Denver, 488 F. 2d 118 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 2644, 41 L.Ed.2d 236 (1974); Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, 255 Cal.App.2d 765, 63 Cal.Rptr. 543 (1967), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 8, 89 S.Ct. 45, 21 L.Ed.2d 10 (1968), disapproved, Metromedia, Inc. v. City…
• William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …rothers Farm Equipment Co. v. International Harvester Co., 498 F. 2d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1023, 95 S.Ct. 500, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974); Hallmark Industry v. Reynolds Metals Co., 489 F. 2d 8, 12 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 2643, 41 L.Ed.2d 235 (1974). The necessity of corroborative conduct rests on the fact that direct evidence of intent alone can be ambiguous and misleading.6 The law of attempted monopolization must tread a narrow pathway between rules that…
• Cal. Computer Prods., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979)
  …ists, proof of market power is unnecessary to support an inference of specific intent.10 Janich Bros., Inc. v. American Distilling Co., 570 F. 2d at 854 n.4; Hallmark Industry v. Reynolds Metals Co., 489 F. 2d 8, 12-13 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 2643, 41 L.Ed.2d 235 (1974). Conversely, “even though the restraint effected may be reasonable under § 1, it may constitute an attempt to monopolize forbidden by § 2 if a specific intent to monopolize may be shown.” United States v. Colum…

  ← 1 / 2 →