It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Notes of Decisions
ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “§ 2 ; and entered into illegal restrictive dealing agreements, in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 . Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Eaton ―used its dominant position to induce all heavy duty truck manufacturers to enter into de facto exclusive…”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 3× “§§ 1 , 2 3 and § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 . 4 The thrust of Avondale’s antitrust argument is that the subcontract between it and Kaiser contained an illegal “tying” arrangement in that Kaiser allegedly conditioned its sale of the desired insulation spray (the “tying”…”
Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77 (3rd Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Absent this tying scheme, the hospital would have preferred to buy cheaper RBCGF drugs offered by Amgen’s competitors.”
Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 2× “This appeal requires us to consider both the standard for granting (and reviewing grants of) preliminary injunctions, and substantive issues of exclusive dealing under section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 , which makes it unlawful to sell goods “on the condition,…”
United States v. Jerrold Elec. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960).
· cites it 6× “§ 2 ); and with contracting to sell and making sales *549 upon unlawful conditions in violation of § 3 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C.A. § 14 ). The complaint was amended with approval of the court on April 2, 1959, to charge the defendants additionally with effecting a series of…”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974).
· cites it 4× “731 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 14 and 18. It presents the questions whether a firm engaged in entirely intrastate sales of asphaltic concrete, a product that can be marketed only locally, is a corporation "in commerce" within the meaning of each of these sections, and whether…”
State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988).
· cites it 4× “) In 1961 the Legislature enacted Business and Professions Code section 16727, essentially adopting section 3 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 14 ), which deals with exclusive dealing arrangements.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.