green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.1 score
“regardless of the legitimacy of the end sought by the union, it cannot engage in secondary pressure to obtain it”
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Frederick Chusid & Co. v. Marshall Leeman & Co.
But cf. Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963); * * Judge Frankel did not dismiss the complaint because he felt that where therp was a possible conflict with other Circuits, “the applicable rule of law should be designed after a trial”; he noted that “a trial may demonstrate that Perryton and the couple of cases resembling it are truly distinguishable” ( 40 F.R.D. at 500 ).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Vogue Instrument Corp. v. Lem Instruments Corp.
But cf. Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963); Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U.S. 821, 826 , 65 S.Ct. 1545 , 89 L.Ed. 1954 (1945); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 497-498 , 69 S.Ct. 982 , 84 L.Ed. 1311 (1940).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York & Vicinity, Local Union No. 638 v. National Labor Relations Board
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
regardless of the legitimacy of the end sought by the union, it cannot engage in secondary pressure to obtain it
cited
Cited "see"
Mercado v. United States
See Kiger v. United *1064 States, 315 F.2d 778 , 780 & n. 3 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 924 , 84 S.Ct. 270 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Schaeffer v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283, 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mora-Gomez
See Kiger v. United States, 315 *1216 F.2d 778, 779 (7th Cir.) (denying relief where petitioner waited four years to challenge conviction), cer t. denied, 375 U.S. 924 , 84 S.Ct. 270 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Crane & Shovel Sales Corp. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
See Ace Beer Distributors v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 , 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963), and Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J.
cited
Cited "see"
Crane & Shovel Sales Corporation v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
See Ace Beer Distributors v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283, 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963), and Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc.
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283, 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963); ABA Antitrust Law Section Monograph No. 9, 26-27; see generally, Posner, The Next Step in Antitrust Treatment of Restricted Distribution Per Se Legality, 48 U.Chi.L.Rev. 6 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc.
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283, 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963); ABA Antitrust Law Section Monograph No. 9, 26-27; see generally, Posner, The Next Step in Antitrust Treatment of Restricted Distribution Per Se Legality, 48 U.Chi.L.Rev. 6 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hob Nob Hill Restaurant v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union
See Walls Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 753, 754 (D.C.Cir.) (malicious allegations not protected, although inaccurate ones are protected), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 923 , 84 S.Ct. 265 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Invictus Records, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
cited
Cited "see"
Cernuto, Inc. v. United Cabinet Corp.
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283, 286-87 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carlo C. Gelardi Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co.
(2×)
See Ace Beer Distribs., Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d *243 283, 287 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Industrial Building Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp.
See the cases cited, supra, in connection with the discussion of plaintiff’s claims of monopoly and the rights of a manufacturer with respect to the distribution of its products, and particularly Ace Beer Distribs., Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963), where plaintiff’s distributorship had been terminated and its business had been stolen under even more reprehensible circumstances than those involved here, even accepting all of plaintiff’s characterizations thereof, but the court found that the Sherman Act was…
discussed
Cited "see"
Miami Parts & Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Company
See Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 6 Cir., 318 F.2d 283 , c. d. 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 . 11 In that case the object of the conspiracy was the termination of plaintiff’s distributorship, and as an incident thereto, the proselyting of plaintiff’s employees.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Distillers Co. Ltd.
See, e. g., Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922 , 84 S.Ct. 267 , 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963); Epstein v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 1966 Trade Cas. ¶ 71,852 , at 82,958 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richardson v. Chrysler Motors Corporation
See also Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 9 Cir., 255 F.2d 214, at 234 , and Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 6 Cir., 318 F.2d 283 , cert. den. 375 U.S. 922 , 982, 84 S.Ct. 267 , 479, 11 L.Ed.2d 166, 428 , which holds that a single trader refusing to deal with another trader does not constitute a group boycott.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re A. & H. Transportation, Inc.
No. 440.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 18, 1963.
Mark R. Joelson for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick and Robert B. Hum-mel for the United States.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 136 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.