City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California v. Stand. Oil Co. of California Texaco, Inc. Exxon Corp. Union Oil Co. of California Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co., State of California, on Behalf of Itself & All Political Subdivisions & Special Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Stand. Oil Co., City of Long Beach v. Stand. Oil Co., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.--Mdl 150. People of the State of California City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California, & the State of California as Beneficiary v. Chevron Corp. Unocal Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co. Shell California Prod., Inc. Exxon Corp. Exxon Co., USA Texaco, Inc., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in the Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.. City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California, & the State of California as Beneficiary v. Stand. Oil Co. of California, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California v. Stand. Oil Co. of California Texaco, Inc. Exxon Corp. Union Oil Co. of California Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co., State of California, on Behalf of Itself & All Political Subdivisions & Special Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Stand. Oil Co., City of Long Beach v. Stand. Oil Co., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.--Mdl 150. People of the State of California City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California, & the State of California as Beneficiary v. Chevron Corp. Unocal Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co. Shell California Prod., Inc. Exxon Corp. Exxon Co., USA Texaco, Inc., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in the Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig.. City of Long Beach, as Tr. for the State of California, & the State of California as Beneficiary v. Stand. Oil Co. of California, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. (ca9, 1995-01-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co.
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.), modified, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 , 110 S.Ct. 1126 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1990). .
discussed Cited "see" 1995-1 Trade Cases P 70,875, 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 587 the City of Long Beach, State of California v. Standard Oil Company of California, and Exxon Corporation
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.), modified, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 , 110 S.Ct. 1126 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1990) 2 Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits "[e]very contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce...." 15 U.S.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Vernon v. Southern California Edison Company
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil, 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.1989) (discussing antitrust claims in action related to California v. Chevron), amended, 886 F.2d 246 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 , 110 S.Ct. 1126 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arizona v. Standard Oil Co.
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
In first considering the parallel pricing evidence alone we do not ignore our mandate to "take special caution to give the [plaintiffs] ‘the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each.' ” Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., 815 F.2d 522, 526 (9th Cir.1977) (quoting Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699 , 82 S.Ct. 1404, 1410 , 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962)); see also City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., 872 F.2d 1401 , 1404-05 (9th Cir.), amended, 886 …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation. State of Arizona v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Continental Oil Co. Gulf Oil Corp. Phillips Petroleum Co. Caribou Four Corners, Inc. And Powerine Oil Co., State of California v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Exxon Corp. Gulf Oil Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Atlantic Richfield Co. Getty Oil Co. And Phillips Petroleum Co., State of Oregon, on Behalf of Itself, Its Residents and All Political Subdivisions Within the State Similarly Situated v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Getty Oil Co. Gulf Oil Corp. And Phillips Petroleum Co., State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities and Residents v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Gulf Oil Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co., and Getty Oil Co. And Phillips Petroleum Co.
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Electrical Services, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626 , 632 n. 4 (9th Cir.1987), "a manufacturer's independent refusal to deal with distributors did not violate antitrust laws." But the same rationale does not necessarily apply to relationships among competitor companies, and we note that horizontal relationships among co-competitors, such as those which exist in this case, are distinguishable from vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors 2 In first considering the parallel pricing evidence alone we do not ignore our mandate to "take special…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California
v.
Standard Oil Company of California Texaco, Incorporated Exxon Corporation Union Oil Company of California Mobil Oil Corporation Shell Oil Company, State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions and Special Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Standard Oil Co., City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation--Mdl 150. People of the State of California City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California, and the State of California as Beneficiary v. Chevron Corporation Unocal Corporation Mobil Oil Corporation Shell Oil Company Shell California Production, Inc. Exxon Corporation Exxon Company, USA Texaco, Inc., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in the Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation. City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California, and the State of California as Beneficiary v. Standard Oil Company of California
87-6300.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 22, 1989.
886 F.2d 246
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

886 F.2d 246

1989-2 Trade Cases 68,772

CITY OF LONG BEACH, as trustee for the State of California,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA; Texaco, Incorporated;
Exxon Corporation; Union Oil Company of
California; Mobil Oil Corporation;
Shell Oil Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of itself and all political
subdivisions and special districts within the
state similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CITY OF LONG BEACH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
In re COORDINATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION--MDL 150.
PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; City of Long Beach, as
Trustee for the State of California, and the State
of California as Beneficiary,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION; Unocal Corporation; Mobil Oil
Corporation; Shell Oil Company; Shell California
Production, Inc.; Exxon Corporation; Exxon Company, USA;
Texaco, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
In re COORDINATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
CITY OF LONG BEACH, as trustee for the State of California,
and the State of California as beneficiary,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 86-5859, 86-5860, 87-6300, 87-6629 and 87-6301 and 87-6628.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 1989.

Before SCHROEDER, FARRIS and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The opinion filed April 17, 1989, Long Beach v. Standard Oil, 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.1989), is amended by striking the following language at page 1407, third full paragraph, 2d col., lines 7-10: "Unlike Matsushita, this is not a case of legitimate price competition or an implausible predatory pricing scheme. Cf. 475 U.S. at 588-595 [106 S.Ct. 1348 at 1356-60, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ]." and substituting therefor, "See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 588-595 [106 S.Ct. at 1356-60]." With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellants' petitions for rehearing and to reject the suggestions for rehearing en banc.

2

The full court was advised of the amendment to the opinion and the suggestions for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)

3

The opinion in 86-5859/5860 is amended as set forth above, the petitions for rehearing are denied and the suggestions for rehearing en banc are rejected.