Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 396 U.S. 1062 (1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 396 U.S. 1062 (1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is well settled that it is not a per se violation of the antitrust laws for a manufacturer or supplier to agree with a distributor to give him an exclusive franchise, even if this means cutting off another distributor (citing cases).”
240 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 54 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Oreck Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (ca2, 1977-09-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Oreck Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2×)
2d Cir. · 1977 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
it is well settled that it is not a per se violation of the antitrust laws for a manufacturer or supplier to agree with a distributor to give him an exclusive franchise, even if this means cutting off another distributor (citing cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd.
v.
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
No. 818.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 2, 1970.
396 U.S. 1062
Joseph L. Alioto and Peter J. Dormid for petitioner. J. Garner Anthony for Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., et al., Herbert Y. C. Choy for Barton Distilling Co. et al., and Livingston Jenks for McKesson & Robbins, Inc., respondents.
Are, Black, Douglas, Granted, Should.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.