green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
13.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1986 ·
…although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Limor v. Buerger (In Re Del-Met Corp.)
the purpose of rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial pleadings are filed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mcmahon v. Mcdowell
although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McMahon v. McDowell
although ordinarily a panel must adhere to prior decisions of this court, our first duty is to follow the dictates of the united states supreme court.
cited
Cited "see"
Nissou-Rabban v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. , 668 F.2d 1014 , 1053 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Estakhrian v. Obenstine
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (Plaintiff in antitrust case “was not required to sue all of the alleged conspirators • inasmuch as antitrust coconspirators are jointly and severally labile for all damages caused by the conspiracy.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
(2×)
See Bemis Co. v. Rubush, 427 N.E.2d 1058, 1061 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amarel v. Connell
See LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs, independent dairy farmers, were competitors of dairy cooperative and therefore had standing to challenge cooperative's alleged anticompetitive conduct in suit for attempted monopolization), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928 , 107 S.Ct. 3212 , 96 L.Ed.2d 699 (1987), and William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir.1981) (antitrust suit premised on allegations that defendant used discriminatory and below-cost pricing to drive out competition from independent bakers…
discussed
Cited "see"
Amarel v. Connell
See LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs, independent dairy farmers, were competitors of dairy cooperative and therefore had standing to challenge cooperative’s alleged anticompetitive conduct in suit for attempted monopolization), ce rt. denied, 482 U.S. 928 , 107 S.Ct. 3212 , 96 L.Ed.2d 699 (1987), and William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 1981) (antitrust suit premised on allegations that defendant used discriminatory and below-cost pricing to drive out competition from independent ba…
cited
Cited "see"
Bush v. Watson
See Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 816 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 62 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Total Tv, a Wisconsin Corporation, Dba Total Tv v. Palmer Communications, Inc. And Colony Communications, Inc.
See Inglis v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1050 n. 62 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 825, 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chezem v. Beverly Enterprises-Texas, Inc.
See County of Imperial v. Munoz, 449 U.S. 54 , 101 S.Ct. 289 , 66 L.Ed.2d 258 (1980), appeal after remand, Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 62 (1982); Pelfresne v. Village of Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017, 1020 (7th Cir.1990) ("Only a party, or, ... one who is in privity with a party, is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act."). 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. McDonnell-Douglas Helicopter Co.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1026 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Gehl Group v. Koby
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351 , 1356 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). .
discussed
Cited "see"
The Gehl Group v. Koby
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351 , 1356 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) 15 The district court also found that Koby's statements were not defamatory, and, therefore, could not form the basis of a procedural due process claim.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jackie McLeod
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), 8 cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. GLEN SLAUGHTER & ASSOCIATES
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 645 (5th Cir.), certs. denied, 456 U.S. 1008 , 102 S.Ct. 2300 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1982), 458 U.S. 1109 , 102 S.Ct 3489 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982), and 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
USA Petroleum Company v. Atlantic Richfield Company
(2×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dartell Lamont Wright, United States of America v. Gill Quinton McDonald
We do not consider this issue. 5 "When a party could have raised an issue in a prior appeal but did not, a court later hearing the same case need not consider the matter." United States v. Wright, 716 F.2d 549, 550 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); accord Munoz v. County of Imperial, 667 F.2d 811, 817 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982). 6 Here, McDonald first appealed his conviction on a jury instruction issue and his sentence after the district court found the Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional.
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1053 n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (delay in proposing amendment, even after extensive pretrial proceedings, is normally insufficient by itself to constitute prejudice to adverse party that would justify denial of leave to amend), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Development Corp.
(2×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1053 n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (delay in proposing amendment, even after extensive pretrial proceedings, is normally insufficient by itself to constitute prejudice to adverse party that would justify denial of leave to amend), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
USA Petroleum Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1034 n. 27 (9th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982). (footnote omitted) The only case which appears to merge price-fixing and predatory pricing is Jack Walters & Sons Corp. v. Morton Building, Inc., 737 F.2d 698 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Edward G. Novotny
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir.1981) (defendants' argument that court lacked jurisdiction because it was not shown that they intended to or did harm society deemed frivolous and without merit), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Barbara Olson
See United States v. Amon, 669 F.2d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir.1981) (defendants' argument that it was not shown that they intended to or did harm society deemed frivolous and without merit), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982). 35 Defendant further maintains that there existed no probable cause for the grand jury indictment.
discussed
Cited "see"
Caller-Times Publishing Co. v. Triad Communications, Inc.
(2×)
Adjusters Replace-A-Car, Inc. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 735 F.2d 884 , 891 n. 6 (5th Cir.1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1160 , 105 S.Ct. 910 , 83 L.Ed.2d 924 (1985); see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1036-38 (9th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Donald D. Payton, II
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 639 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 776-78 (2d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States Steel Corporation, Uss Corporation, Uss Division (Formerly United States Steel Corporation), in 88-3775 United States Steel Corporation v. Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. MacArthur Trustees of the Property of the Penn Central Transportation Company the Penn Central Transportation Rail Corporation the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Uss Corporation, Uss Division (Formerly United States Steel Corporation), in 88-3776 United States Steel Corporation v. Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. MacArthur Trustees of the Property of the Penn Central Transportation Company the Penn Central Transportation Rail Corporation the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Norfolk and Western Railway Company, in 88-3803 the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, in 88-3804 v. United States Steel Corporation
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). 29 For each of these reasons, we accept the district court's determination that the statute of limitations does not bar USS's recovery of its overcharge claims.
cited
Cited "see"
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
Accord William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); Hennessey v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 564 F.2d 1136, 1147 (5th Cir.1977); American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 521 F.2d 1230 , 1245 n. 42 (3d Cir.1975); Walker Distrib.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelco Disposal, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc.
Adjusters Replace-A-Car, Inc. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 735 F.2d 884 , 891 n. 6 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1160 , 105 S.Ct. 910 , 83 L.Ed.2d 924 (1985); see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1036-38 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelco Disposal, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Industries Of Vermont, Inc.
Adjusters Replace-A-Car, Inc. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., 735 F.2d 884 , 891 n. 6 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1160 , 105 S.Ct. 910 , 83 L.Ed.2d 924 (1985); see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1036-38 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Chris W. Henry, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Midwest Battery, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. Chloride, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Cross-Appellee
Ante at 1346; see William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1035-46 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
examined
Cited "see"
Marsann Company, a Sole Proprietorship v. Brammall, Inc., a Corporation
(4×)
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); California Computer Products, Inc. v. IBM, 613 F.2d 727, 736 (9th Cir.1979). 1 Because it is unreasonable to expect plaintiffs in most cases to produce evidence of anticompetitive intent by sophisticated defendants, see Inglis, 688 F.2d at 1028 & n. 6, we have allowed juries to infer the requisite intent from evidence of "the relationship between the defendant's prices and costs." Id. at 1034.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gardner
See generally United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 , 640 n. 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) ("If the criminal investigation is complete prior to the immunity grant, then immunity raises few problems.”). .
cited
Cited "see"
D.A. Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration Foundation, Inc.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1029 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration FounDation, Inc.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1029 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Jays Foods, Inc. v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
See generally William Inglis & Sons Baking Company v. ITT Continental Baking Company, Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1035-36 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Armando Benitez
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 641 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Gemini Supply Corp. v. Zeitlin
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982); O.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Upton
(2×)
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 639 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Francis
See United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 641 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982); United States v. Fosher, 590 F.2d 381, 382-384 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365, 368-369 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see"
Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc.
See William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F. 2d 1014, 1046 (CA9 1981), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 825 (1982); Balian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 231 F. 2d 356, 366 (CA9 1955), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 991 (1956); Rowe, at 235-236.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Skretvedt v. Dupont De Nemours
Consequently, we cannot consider [them] here [on appeal from the District Court's proceedings on remand]." Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 88 (3d Cir.1987) (citations omitted); see also Frank v. Colt Indus., Inc., 910 F.2d 90 , 100 (3d Cir.1990) (party "waived ... argument by its failure to present it in the proceedings prior to this appeal," including proceedings "when the case was before us on the previous appeal"). 36 As we explained in Cowgill v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 798 (3d Cir.1987), 37 [a]dherence to the rule that a party waives a "contention that could ha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoover Color Corporation v. Bayer Corporation
Alan’s of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp., 903 F.2d 1414, 1425-26 (11th Cir.1990) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1048 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that even an “admittedly small doubt” that a seller’s price reductions were a good faith response to competition required reversal of the district court’s judgment as a matter of law to the seller), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hoover Color Corp v. Bayer Corporation
Alan's of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp., 903 F.2d 1414, 1425-26 (11th Cir. 1990) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1048 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that even an "admittedly small doubt" that a seller's price reductions were a good faith response to competition required reversal of the district court's judg- ment as a matter of law to the seller), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982). 7 III.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hughes Aircraft Company
See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 910-11 (9th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1980); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1052-54 & n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that district court properly considered on summary judgment an antitrust plaintiff's vertical conspiracy claim that had not been raised in the complaint), cert. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 910-11 (9th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Mateer, 625 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1980); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 , 1052-54 & n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that district court properly considered on summary judgment an antitrust plaintiffs vertical conspiracy claim that had not been raised in the complaint), cer t. denied 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phoenix Electric Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (Predatory pricing occurs when a competitor sets low prices in order to drive out competition so that it can later charge monopoly prices and reap monopoly profits.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Phoenix Electric Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n
See, e.g., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (Predatory pricing occurs when a competitor sets low prices in order to drive out competition so that it can later charge monopoly prices and reap monopoly profits.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1508, at 556 (1971)); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1057 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 57 , 58, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (“The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible by allowing the addition of claims which arise after the initial pleadings are filed ...
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Associated Grocers
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 81-2069.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
459 U.S. 825
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · M.D. Tennessee (1)
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.