Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

illinois Brick Co. Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1977

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

69 entries 1 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1967
  2. U.S. 720 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  3. U.S. 720 (1977) Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  4. of the Sherman Act. Petitioners, relying on Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  5. Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  6. S. 765 . Page 431 U. S. 723 MR JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  7. general contractors to respondents, rather than being absorbed at the first two levels of distribution. See Illinois v. Ampress
    Search
  8. Page 431 U. S. 731 unless the indirect purchaser is unable to establish any pass-on whatsoever. As in Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  9. In re Western Liquid Asphalt Cases, 487 F.2d 191, 197 (CA9 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. Alaska
    Search
  10. statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this Court's interpretation of its legislation. See Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  11. Burnet v. Coronado
    Search
  12. Joinder of Parties in Civil Actions, 55 Mich.L.Rev. 327, 330 (1957). See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  13. for purposes of compulsory joinder, given in Shield v. Barrow
    Search
  14. under Fed.Rule Civ.Proc.19(b). See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  15. no further than our own difficulties with sophisticated statistical methodology that were evident last Term in Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  16. much larger product, making the demand for the price-fixed good highly inelastic. Compare Philadelphia Housing Auth. v. American
    Search
  17. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 50 F.R.D. 13 (ED Pa.1970), aff'd sub nom. Mangano v. American
    Search
  18. policy of encouraging vigorous private enforcement of the antitrust laws, see, e.g, Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International
    Search
  19. it is also designed to compensate victims of antitrust violations for their injuries. E.g., Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo
    Search
  20. Compare Mangano v. American
    Search
  21. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 438 F.2d 1187 (CA3 1971), aff'g Philadelphia Housing Auth. v. American
    Search
  22. with In re Western Liquid Asphalt Cases, 487 F.2d 191 (CA9 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. Alaska
    Search
  23. West Virginia v. Chas
    Search
  24. Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Cotler Drugs, Inc. v. Chas
    Search
  25. Pfizer & Co., 404 U.S. 871 (1971), and the decision below, Illinois v. Ampress
    Search
  26. Boshes v. General
    Search
  27. Carnivale Bag Co. v. Slide-Rite
    Search
  28. statutory language that was thought to clarify the meaning of an earlier statute. E.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
    Search
  29. Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 , 419 U. S. 132 (1974), quoting National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB
    Search
  30. pass-on defense might be permitted is where the direct purchaser is owned or controlled by its customer. Cf. Perkins v. Standard
    Search
  31. E.g., Philadelphia Housing Auth. v. American
    Search
  32. E.g., Donson Stores, Inc. v. American
    Search
  33. West Virginia v. Chas
    Search
  34. Mandevlle Island Farms, Inc. v. American
    Search
  35. to the ultimate consumers. This frustration of the congressional scheme is in no way mandated by Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  36. Id. at 392 U. S. 491 . The particularly apt precedent supporting this proposition was Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnel-Taenzer
    Search
  37. cannot be read, however, as limiting actions to parties in privity with one another. That was made clear in Perkins v. Standard
    Search
  38. See Brunswick Corp v. Pueblo
    Search
  39. broadly, this in recognition of the plainly stated congressional objective, Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  40. action play a paramount role in the enforcement of the fundamental economic policy of the Nation, Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
    Search
  41. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New
    Search
  42. Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International
    Search
  43. Radovich v. National
    Search
  44. Bigelow v. RKO
    Search
  45. Radio Pictures, 327 U. S. 251 , 327 U. S. 265 -266 (1946). See also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  47. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  48. of the Court. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  49. See Illinois v. Ampress
    Search
  50. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. Alaska
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial