green
Positive treatment
2.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemp Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. v. Hartford Automobile Dealers' Ass'n
Ct. 301, 100 L.Ed. 818 (1956). 5 It can hardly be denied that if there was any price-fixing agreement among the defendants concerning the sales of Chevrolets, the targets were the customers who bought them, not the plaintiff who, as a competitor with unhampered ability and unrestricted freedom to compete effectively, lost the sale. 6 In order to claim *1387 treble damages the plaintiff must establish not only that he “was within the target area of the illegal practices,” but further that he “was not only hit, but was aimed at Karseal Corp. v. Richfield Oil Corp., 221 F.2d 358, 365 (9th C…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arndt v. UBS AG
See generally Societe Internationale Pour Partic- *135 ipations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. McGranery, 111 F.Supp. 435 (D.D.C.1953), order modified by, 225 F.2d 532 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 937 , 76 S.Ct. 302 , 100 L.Ed. 818 (1956).
cited
Cited "see"
Chandler v. STERN DENTAL LABORATORY COMPANY
See Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (7th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 936 , 76 S.Ct. 301 , 100 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America
Freeman v. Seligson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 65 , 405 F.2d 1326, 1335 (1968); see Societe Internationale, Etc. v. Brownell, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 241 , 225 F.2d 532 , 541 (1955) rev’d on other grounds, 350 U.S. 937 , 76 S.Ct. 302 , 100 L.Ed. 818 (1958) ; United States v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Association, 22 F.R.D. 300 (D.D.C.1958). . 246 F.Supp. at 846-847 . . 81 Stat. 54 (1967), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Supp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mendel Schwimmer D/B/A Supersonic Electronics Co. v. Sony Corporation of America and Sony Corporation
See, e. g., Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678, 680 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 936 , 76 S.Ct. 301 , 100 L.Ed. 818 (1956); Long Island Lighting Co. v. Standard Oil Co., supra, at 1274. 14 While courts frequently focus on the purpose of the antitrust conspiracy, specifically whether it was “aimed at” the one claiming injury, we do not conclude that a requirement of specific intent should be read into the “target area” test. 15 As the Ninth Circuit stated in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Goldwyn, 328 F.2d 190, 220 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sulmeyer v. Seven-Up Co.
See also Calderone Enterprises Corp. v. United States Theatre Circuit, 454 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 930 , 92 S.Ct. 1776 , 32 L.Ed.2d 132 (1972) and Productive Inventions v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 936 , 76 S.Ct. 301 , 100 L.Ed. 818 (1956). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marshall v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., D.C.Pa.1938, 26 F.Supp. 183 , affirmed 3 Cir., 1939, 106 F.2d 491, 495 ; Metropolis Bending Co. v. Brandwen, D.C.Pa.1948, 8 F.R.D. 296 ; see also, Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corporation, 2 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 678 , certiorari denied 1956, 350 U.S. 936 , 76 S.Ct. 301 , 100 L.Ed. 818 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wismiller
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 549.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1956.
Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Sobeloff for the United States.
Published
Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.