Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery.

Petitioner Northwest Wholesale Stationers is a purchasing cooperative made up of approximately 100 office supply retailers in the Pacific Northwest States. The cooperative acts as the primary wholesaler for the retailers. Retailers that are not members of the cooperative can purchase wholesale supplies from Northwest at the same price as members. At the end of each year, however, Northwest.

Brown; Rebutting the presumption; People v. Lee. Summary: The court held that because defendant did not argue that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or present any other grounds for not being bound by counsel’s conduct, he waived any right to challenge the 30-year minimum sentence. Also, the trial court imposed a proportionate.

Id. McDaniel has submitted no evidence of any purchases or sales made through the Appraisal Institute. Cf. Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery and Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284, 105 S.Ct. 2613, 86 L.Ed.2d 202 (1985). McDaniel argues that this case is analogous to Pinhas v. Summit Health, Ltd., 894 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir.1989.

App. 99. After limited discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment on the question “whether, with regard to the facet of their operations respecting exploitation of intellectual property rights, the NFL and its 32 teams are, in the jargon of antitrust law, acting as a single entity.” American Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans La. Saints, 496 F. Supp. 2d 941, 943 (2007). The court.

Pursuant to Rule 37.2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Financial Services Roundtable respectfully move this Court for leave to file the accompanying brief, as amici curiae in support of petitioners Texaco, Inc. and Shell Oil Company.

On this ground the complaint was dismissed and summary judgment was entered for the defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment. 255 F.2d 214. It stated that 'a violation of the Sherman Act requires conduct of defendants by which the public is or conceivably may be ultimately injured.' 255 F.2d at page 233. It held that here the required public injury.

The series is trusted for its expert summary of the principal cases in your casebook. Its proven reliability makesCasenote Legal Briefsthe most popular case brief series available. With more than 100 titles keyed to the current editions of major casebooks, you know you can find the help you need. The brief for each case saves you time and helps.

Corp. v. American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs, 635 F.2d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 1980), af'd, 456 U.S. 556 (1982) the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) merely expressed an opinion about whether the plaintiff's product conformed with ASME's safety standards.

Publisher Summary. This chapter discusses a wide range of strategies that can be employed by incumbent firms either to protect or to extend their market shares against competitive attacks by actual and potential entrants. The hallmark of these strategies is that, invariably, they reduce the expected level of profits that incumbent's rivals—present and future—can hope to earn. As such, they.

Summary of Leegin On its facts, Leegin is a common resale price maintenance case in a terminated dealer context. Plaintiff PSKS operates Kay’s Kloset, a women’s apparel store in Texas. Defendant Leegin manufactures and distributes leather goods and accessories, including leather belts sold under the brand name “Brighton.” Leegin believes that, for some of its products, smaller.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1,5 (1958). The Court also The Court also tends to focus its holdings on the conduct even when it engages in a rule of reason analysis that may.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System 227 Notes and Questions 234 Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc 235 Notes and Questions 238 Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society 239 Notes and Questions 245 National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board OfRegents 247 Notes and Questions 256 California Dental Ass'n v.