Citation network
United States Vs. Container Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1969
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
-
United States v. ContainerSearch
-
Corp. - 393 U.S. 333 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. ContainerSearch
-
Corp., 393 U.S. 333 (1969) United States v. ContainerSearch
-
There was here an exchange of price information, but no agreement to adhere to a price schedule, as in Sugar Institute v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 297 U. S. 553 , or United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
Page 393 U. S. 335 without identifying the parties to specific transactions, as in Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 268 U. S. 563 . While there was present here, as in Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
The limitation or reduction of price competition brings the case within the ban, for, as we held in United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
of the Sherman Act. As we said in United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
The agreement in the present case, though somewhat casual, is analogous to those in American Column & Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 257 U. S. 377 , and United States v. AmericanSearch
-
mechanism of the marketplace as to bring it within the condemnation of this Court's decisions. Cf. Sugar Institute v. UnitedSearch
-
American Column & Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
This is obviously quite different from the parallel business behavior condoned in Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. ParamountSearch
-
And so the restless, never-ending search for price control and other types of restraint. We held in United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
be illegal per se without regard to their precise purpose or harm. As this Court said in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Among these practices are price-fixing, Page 393 U. S. 341 United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
division of markets, United States v. AddystonSearch
-
group boycotts, Fashion Originators' Guild v. FTCSearch
-
U. S. 457 (1941), and tying arrangements, International Salt Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
for the marketing of tires, batteries, and accessories by service stations affiliated with major oil companies. FTC v. TexacoSearch
-
apply a per se rule to exchanges of price and market information in the past. See American Column & Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. ContainerSearch
-
Sugar Institute v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
and United States v. AmericanSearch
-
Cf. Sugar Institute v. UnitedSearch
-
Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. ParamountSearch
-
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AddystonSearch
-
Fashion Originators' Guild v. FTCSearch
-
International Salt Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
FTC v. TexacoSearch
-
See American Column & Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial