Loading…

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc. — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.

118 L. Ed. 2d 316 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 6, 1992

Full text

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.

Opinions in this case

Majority
Majority

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.

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: Certiorari
Cluster ID: 9119984

Citations

118 L. Ed. 2d 316
503 U.S. 977
112 S. Ct. 1603
60 U.S.L.W. 3688
1992 U.S. LEXIS 2242

Cited by

Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 14, 2003
In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Company
N.D. California · May 15, 2003
In re Northwest Airlines Corp.
E.D. Michigan · May 16, 2002
Lawrence v. Chapter 7 Trustee (In Re Lawrence)
S.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2000
Eleven Line, Inc. v. North Texas State Soccer Ass'n

© 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

Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2000

Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island

Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 9, 2000

Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

N.D. California · Aug 20, 1999

Florida Municipal Power Agency v. Florida Power & Light Co.

M.D. Florida · Aug 18, 1999

Wojcieszek v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 1997

Simpson v. US West Communications, Inc.

D. Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

Cost Management Services, Inc. v. Washington Natural Gas Company

Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 1996

In Re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation

Supreme Court of Minnesota · Aug 15, 1996

Parentheticals

“We believe that Berkey Photo misapplied the elements of Section 2 by concluding that a firm violates Section 2 merely by obtaining a competitive advantage in the second market, even in the absence of an attempt to monopolize the leveraged market.”
United States v. Eastman Kodak Co.