Loading…

Pacific Coast European Conference v. United States — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Pacific Coast European Conference v. United States

15 L. Ed. 2d 362 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 1965

Full text

Pacific Coast European Conference v. United States

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Dow Chemical Co. et al. to be added as parties respondent granted. Certiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 8962928

Citations

15 L. Ed. 2d 362
382 U.S. 958
86 S. Ct. 433
1965 U.S. LEXIS 52

Cited by

Industrial Burner Systems, Inc. v. Maxon Corp.
E.D. Michigan · Aug 4, 2003
Wynn Ex Rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris Inc.
N.D. Alabama · Apr 28, 1999
United States v. Castillo-Garcia
Tenth Circuit · Jun 30, 1997
Lennox v. Mull
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1991
J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc.
Third Circuit · Aug 2, 1990
Alan's of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corporation, Robert Lathrop, Wolf Camera, Inc., and Charles Wolf
Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1990
West Allis Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bowen
Seventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1988
Boise Cascade Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1988

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

In Re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank

N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 1986

Medallion TV Enterprises, Inc. v. SelecTV of California, Inc.

C.D. California · Jan 31, 1986

In the Matter of George Sinadinos, a Witness Before the Special March 1983 Grand Jury

Seventh Circuit · Apr 24, 1985

Parentheticals

recognizing that section 2(a) protects injury to competition as well as injury to competitors
Alan's of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corporation, Robert Lathrop, Wolf Camera, Inc., and Charles Wolf
recognizing that section 2(a) protects injury to competition as well as injury to competitors
Wynn Ex Rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris Inc.
processing of fluid milk negligible in terms of time and chemical change, fairly predictable demands of specific retail customers
Kenneth J. Hampton D/B/A Hampton Vending Supply v. Graff Vending Co.
holding that it does not
O'Connell v. Citrus Bowl, Inc.
the milk underwent 'rather negligible processing,' so the 'flow of commerce' was not interrupted
James M. Bacon v. Texaco, Inc., No. 74-2045 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y. (5th Cir. 1970), 431 F.2d 409, Part I
an approximate five percent advantage was sufficient, even though resale prices were not affected
Industrial Burner Systems, Inc. v. Maxon Corp.
the milk underwent “rather negligible processing,” so the “flow of commerce” was not interrupted
Bacon v. Texaco, Inc.