Eli Lilly & Co. v. Smithkline Corp., 439 U.S. 838 (1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Smithkline Corp., 439 U.S. 838 (1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
126 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 36 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Prudencio v. Runyon (vawd, 1998-04-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Prudencio v. Runyon
W.D. Va. · 1998 · signal: accord · confidence high
Retroactive seniority may not be denied merely because of the “abstract basis of adverse impact upon interests of other employees.” Franks, supra, 424 U.S. at 779 , 96 S.Ct. 1251 ; accord, Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 289 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Washington Trust Co. v. Smith
Conn. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S. Ct. 123 , 58 L.
cited Cited "see" Washington Trust Co. v. Smith
Conn. App. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S. Ct. 123 , 58 L.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Oregon
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. State Of Oregon
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978). 69 The Makah also argue that they were the victims of intentional deception.
cited Cited "see" Aleut Corp. v. Tyonek Native Corp.
9th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Aleut Corporation, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation v. Tyonek Native Corporation, Applicants for Intervention-Appellants, Aleut Corporation, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation v. Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, Applicant for Intervention-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
D.D.C. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smithkline Corporation v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1065 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Sandra Garrity v. Hugh J. Gallen, Appeal of Salem School District
1st Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Horton v. Meskill
Conn. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 Ü.S. 837, 99 S. Ct. 123 , 58 L.
discussed Cited "see" Larry V. Muko, Inc. v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Building And Construction Trades Council
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown Shoe, supra. As this Court held in SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978): 55 defining a relevant product market is a process of describing those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability-actual or potential-to take significant amounts of business away from each other.
discussed Cited "see" Larry V. Muko, Inc. v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Building & Construction Trades Council
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown Shoe, supra. As this Court held in SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978): defining a relevant product market is a process of describing those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aquatherm Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
M.D. Fla. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Smith-Kline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.) (describing the relevant product market as “those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.) (describing the relevant product market as “those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Town Sound & Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motor Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Specifically, a product market is “composed of products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced — price, use and qualities considered.” United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 404 , 76 S.Ct. 994, 1012 , 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956); Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); see also SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hudson's Bay Co. Fur Sales Inc. v. American Legend Co-Op.
D.N.J. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Smithkline Corp. v. Eli lilly & Co., 427 F.Supp. 1089, 1094-1110 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978); United States v. Brown Shoe Co., 179 F.Supp. 721 (E.D.Mo.1959), aff'd, 370 U.S. 294 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); United States v. International Boxing Club of N.Y., 150 F.Supp. 397, 401-419 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff'd, 358 U.S. 242 , 79 S.Ct. 245 , 3 L.Ed.2d 270 (1959).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Football League v. National Football League (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
It is well-settled that the definition of a relevant product market “turns on discovering patterns of trade which are followed in practice.” United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295, 303 (D.Mass.1953), aff'd per curiam, 347 U.S. 521 , 74 S.Ct. 699 , 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954); see, e.g., SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 427 F.Supp. 1089, 1118 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978) (relevant product market defined by reference to current consumer-physician practices); see generally ABA Antitrust Sect…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sanguine, Ltd. v. United States Department Of The Interior
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sanguine, Ltd. v. United States Department of the Interior
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Raul International Corp. v. Sealed Power Corp.
D.N.J. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1062-63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eli Lilly & Co.
v.
Smithkline Corp.
No. 77-1869.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1978.
439 U.S. 838
Published

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.