Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.green2 sentences2001(Monsanto, at pp. 757-759, 104 S.Ct. 1464 .) The Supreme Court rejected that analysis but affirmed the judgment based on a more rigorous standard of proof designed to distinguish "independent action by the manufacturer" from "price-fixing agreements." (Id. at pp. 759, 763,104 S.Ct. 1464 .) The Monsanto court first distinguished between "concerted and independent action." ( Monsanto, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 761, 104 S.Ct. 1464 .) It noted the statutory requirement of a "`contract, combination .... or conspiracy'" to establish a Sherman Act violation, and stated that the act therefore does not pro 2001(Monsanto, at pp. 757-759, 104 S.Ct. 1464 .) The Supreme Court rejected that analysis but affirmed the judgment based on a more rigorous standard of proof designed to distinguish "independent action by the manufacturer" from "price-fixing agreements." (Id. at pp. 759, 763,104 S.Ct. 1464 .) The Monsanto court first distinguished between "concerted and independent action." ( Monsanto, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 761, 104 S.Ct. 1464 .) It noted the statutory requirement of a "`contract, combination .... or conspiracy'" to establish a Sherman Act violation, and stated that the act therefore does not pro | 2 | 2 |
Drennan v. Security Pacific National Bankgreen2 sentences1981Bank (1981) 28 Cal.3d 764, 779 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 904 , 621 P.2d 1318 ].) The Beneficiaries’ Sherman Act claim is barred by the Parker v. Brown exemption. 1981Bank (1981) 28 Cal.3d 764, 779 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 904 , 621 P.2d 1318 ].) The Beneficiaries’ Sherman Act claim is barred by the Parker v. Brown exemption. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bhaktagreen1 sentence2024(People v. Bhakta (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 631, 636 [after an action is removed to federal court, “jurisdiction returns to the state court when a remand order is filed and served on the state court, unless that order is stayed”].) The complaint was filed on November 5, 2013 with the five- year period originally ending on November 5, 2018. | 1 | 1 |
Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hillgreen1 sentence2014Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 464 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ] (Noerr), trucking companies sued railroad companies claiming their efforts to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). ( 365 U.S. at p. 129 .) The court held that the Sherman Act did not bar people from associating to persuade the government to take particular action. (365 U.S. at pp. 136- 137.) In reaching this conclusion, the court opined that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct ‘would raise important constitutional questions’ concerning the right of pet | 1 | 1 |
Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1997(See, e.g., Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 542 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 ]; Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1242 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 308 ]; Bert G. 1997(See, e.g., Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 542 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 ]; Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1242 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 308 ]; Bert G. | 1 | 1 |
Roth v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences1997(See, e.g., Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 542 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 ]; Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1242 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 308 ]; Bert G. 1997(See, e.g., Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 542 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 ]; Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1242 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 308 ]; Bert G. | 1 | 1 |
Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.green2 sentences1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. 1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 464 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ] (Noerr), trucking companies sued railroad companies claiming their efforts to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). ( 365 U.S. at p. 129 .) The court held that the Sherman Act did not bar people from associating to persuade the government to take particular action. (365 U.S. at pp. 136- 137.) In reaching this conclusion, the court opined that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct ‘would raise important constitutional questions’ concerning the right of pet 2014Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 464 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ] (Noerr), trucking companies sued railroad companies claiming their efforts to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). ( 365 U.S. at p. 129 .) The court held that the Sherman Act did not bar people from associating to persuade the government to take particular action. (365 U.S. at pp. 136- 137.) In reaching this conclusion, the court opined that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct ‘would raise important constitutional questions’ concerning the right of pet | 2 | 2009–2014 |
United Mine Workers v. Pennington
green
2 sentences2014Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 464 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ] (Noerr), trucking companies sued railroad companies claiming their efforts to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). ( 365 U.S. at p. 129 .) The court held that the Sherman Act did not bar people from associating to persuade the government to take particular action. (365 U.S. at pp. 136- 137.) In reaching this conclusion, the court opined that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct ‘would raise important constitutional questions’ concerning the right of pet 2014Conf. v. Noerr Motors (1961) 365 U.S. 127 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 464 , 81 S.Ct. 523 ] (Noerr), trucking companies sued railroad companies claiming their efforts to influence legislation regulating trucking violated the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). ( 365 U.S. at p. 129 .) The court held that the Sherman Act did not bar people from associating to persuade the government to take particular action. (365 U.S. at pp. 136- 137.) In reaching this conclusion, the court opined that construing the Sherman Act to reach such conduct ‘would raise important constitutional questions’ concerning the right of pet | 2 | 2009–2014 |
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Asahi also directs our attention to Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (N.D.I11. 2007) 524 F.Supp.2d 1031 (Omnicare), a federal trial court decision in the Seventh Circuit denying a motion to dismiss a section 1 Sherman Act claim based on alleged premerger price fixing by two prescription drug providers. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.
green
1 sentence1988Corp. (D.Haw. 1978) 449 F.Supp. 1158, 1173 .) 13 Although the court did not reach the issue of Sherman Act violation, the decision is relevant to the Cartwright Act. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
King City Realty, Inc. v. Sunpace Corp.
green
2 sentences1983But since respondents Midas and International availed themselves of the privilege of doing business through separate corporations, the fact of common ownership could not save them from any of the obligations that the law imposes on separate entities. [Citations.] In any event each petitioner can clearly charge a combination between Midas and himself, as of the day he unwillingly complied with the restrictive franchise agreements [citations] . . . .” This line of reasoning was recently following by the Oregon Supreme Court in King City Realty, Inc. v. Sunpace Corp. (1981) 291 Ore. 573 [ 633 P.2 1983But since respondents Midas and International availed themselves of the privilege of doing business through separate corporations, the fact of common ownership could not save them from any of the obligations that the law imposes on separate entities. [Citations.] In any event each petitioner can clearly charge a combination between Midas and himself, as of the day he unwillingly complied with the restrictive franchise agreements [citations] . . . .” This line of reasoning was recently following by the Oregon Supreme Court in King City Realty, Inc. v. Sunpace Corp. (1981) 291 Ore. 573 [ 633 P.2 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Edward J. Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. 1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
cluster 298970
green
2 sentences1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. 1983(See e.g., Roberts v. Elaine Powers Figure Salons, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 1476 ; Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 43 .) In Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, 141-142 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 982, 991-992 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 ], the Supreme Court determined: “There remains for consideration only the Court of Appeals’ alternative holding that the Sherman Act claim should be dismissed because respondents were all part of a single business entity and were therefore entitled to cooperate without creating an illegal conspiracy. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
green
2 sentences1979By contrast, a Sherman Act immunity was found in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 810 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 ], The United States Supreme Court found that a ban on price advertising, adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, did not violate the Sherman Act, because the state court itself had adopted the challenged rule, and the state bar’s role was completely defined. 1979By contrast, a Sherman Act immunity was found in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 810 , 97 S.Ct. 2691 ], The United States Supreme Court found that a ban on price advertising, adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, did not violate the Sherman Act, because the state court itself had adopted the challenged rule, and the state bar’s role was completely defined. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.