Citation network
Albrecht Vs. Herald Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1968
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
Co. - 390 U.S. 145 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968) Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
showed, as a matter of law, a combination to fix a resale price which was per se illegal under United States v. ParkeSearch
-
respondent, Milne, and Kroner, to force petitioner to conform to respondent's advertised retail price. United States v. ParkeSearch
-
U. S. 146 Act, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no restraint of trade. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. SeagramSearch
-
court denied petitioner's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which asserted that, under United States v. ParkeSearch
-
in addition to contracts and conspiracies, express or implied. The Court made this quite clear in United States v. ParkeSearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. SeagramSearch
-
United States v. McKessonSearch
-
of the Sherman Act, either alone or in conjunction with a price-fixing scheme. See United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
because the firmly enforced price policy applied to all carriers, most of whom acquiesced in it. See United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
it is unnecessary to pass on this claim. It was not, however, a frivolous contention. See Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-NutSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Girardi v. GatesSearch
-
Graham v. TriangleSearch
-
case stemming from Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
for resale is conspicuously unreasonable, because of the great leverage that price has over the market. United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
have to be tried as a factual issue, and that was not done here. The case is therefore close to White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Chicago Board of Trade v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 246 U. S. 231 , 246 U. S. 238 . Cf. United States v. ParkeSearch
-
United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
subject for a per se rule in the sense that it has no adequate provable justification. See, e.g., 372 U. S. v. UnitedSearch
-
from those which imply a combination to keep prices up. It was for this reason that, in Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. SeagramSearch
-
See the opinion of Judge Coffin in Quinn v. MobilSearch
-
See the analysis in the leading case, United States v. TrentonSearch
-
and Refusals to Deal, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 655. Professor Turner (as he then was) suggested the overruling of United States v. ColgateSearch
-
United States v. ParkeSearch
-
s monopoly position. Page 390 U. S. 169 The cases cited by the petitioner, such as Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. SeagramSearch
-
Sons, 340 U. S. 211 , and United States v. ParkeSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
See United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
See Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-NutSearch
-
White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. ParkeSearch
-
U. S. v. UnitedSearch
-
Quinn v. MobilSearch
-
United States v. TrentonSearch
-
of United States v. ColgateSearch
-
and United States v. ParkeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial