green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Hiland Dairy, Inc., Reiss Dairy,… ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.4 score
“in testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint . . . conclusions of law and unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted.”
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mid-America Regional Bargaining Association v. Will County Carpenters District Council
in testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint . . . conclusions of law and unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bloom v. Hennepin County
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 974 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969) (twenty percent insufficient for actual monopolization); United States v. Empire Gas Co., 537 F.2d 296, 305 (8th Cir.1976), ce r., denied, 429 U.S. 1122 , 97 S.Ct. 1158 , 51 L.Ed.2d 572 (1977) (forty-seven to fifty percent insufficient to show dangerous probability of success).
examined
Cited "see"
People Against Nuclear Energy v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(6×)
The reason for postponing a full restart was that the Board had not yet completed an inquiry into allegations of cheating by two TMI-1 supervisors on an NRC examination 62 Intervenor-Respondents' Comments on NRC's Memorandum and Order Concerning the Atomic Energy Act at 4-6 (footnotes omitted) 63 Maj. op. at 235 64 Metropolitan Edison Co., 12 N.R.C. 607 , 610 (1981) (separate views of Chairman Ahearne); id. at 615 (separate views of Commissioner Hendrie) 65 Id. at 619 (separate views of Commissioner Gilinsky); id. at 621 (separate views of Commissioner Bradford) 66 Judgment, reprinted in note …
cited
Cited "see"
Lektro-Vend Corporation v. The Vendo Company
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co.
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph A. Orlando and Anna L. Orlando v. Tony Alamo, Susan Alamo and the Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc. v. Buffalo Evening News, Inc.
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 972 (8 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc.
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 974-75 (8th Cir. 1968) cert. denied 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Viola McKinney v. Lee E. De Bord
(2×)
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) 2 See, e.g., DeWitt v. Pail, 366 F.2d 682, 685 (9th Cir. 1966) 3 See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969); Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F.2d 54, 57 (10th Cir. 1957); Ogden River Water Users' Ass'n v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy, 238 F.2d 936, 940 (10th Cir. 1956); International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, 55 F.R.D. 180, 186 (D.Puerto Rico 1972); Herman v. C.
discussed
Cited "see"
HF & S. COMPANY v. American Standard, Inc.
See Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Company (8th Cir. 1968) 402 F.2d 968, 971 , cert. den. 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 ; Cliff Food Stores, Inc. v. Kroger, Inc. (5th Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 203, 207 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L.J. Zucca, Inc. v. Allen Bros. Wholesale Distributors inc.
See, e.g., Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 973-75 (8th Cir. 1968) (sales of dairy products as loss-leaders gave no rise to dangerous probability of monopoly in a highly-competitive dairy market), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S. Ct. 2096 , 23 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
See also Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969) (twenty percent market share inadequate to allow exclusion of competition or control of prices).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Corp.
See also Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968, 973-75 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 961 , 89 S.Ct. 2096 , 23 L.Ed.2d 748 (1969) (holding that “loss leader” sales in that case did not give rise to dangerous probability of monopoly).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thal
v.
Commonwealth Financial Corp.
v.
Commonwealth Financial Corp.
No. 1369.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 16, 1969.
Albert B. Gerber for petitioner., Solicitor General Griswold, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber, and Paul Gonson for respondent Securities and Exchange Commission, and Morris M. Wexler and Leon S. Forman for respondents Pitman et al.
Cited by 106 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.