Citation network
Copperweld Vs. Independence Tube
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1984
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
-
Copperweld v. IndependenceSearch
-
Tube - 467 U.S. 752 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Copperweld v. IndependenceSearch
-
Tube, 467 U.S. 752 (1984) Copperweld Corp. v. IndependenceSearch
-
escape liability for lack of the requisite two legal persons. However, relying on its decision in Photovest Corp. v. FotomatSearch
-
conspiracy was in all but perhaps one instance unnecessary to the result. The problem began with United States v. YellowSearch
-
applicability of the Sherman Act. That statute is aimed at substance, rather than form. See Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 227-228 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. ReadingSearch
-
The Court's opinion relies on Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. JosephSearch
-
Stewart, and in none of the cases was the doctrine necessary to the result reached. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
conspiracy doctrine was in no way necessary to the result. The same is true of Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. InternationalSearch
-
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is illegal per se, without inquiry into the harm it has actually caused. See generally Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
power and market structure designed to assess the combination's actual effect. See, e.g., Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
Chicago Board of Trade v. UnitedSearch
-
American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. WincklerSearch
-
divisions. Indeed, this is precisely what the Seagram company did after this Court's decision in Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. JosephSearch
-
Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
is limited to concerted conduct at least since the days of United States v. ColgateSearch
-
Under the arrangements condemned in Northern Securities Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 221 U. S. 1 (1911), and United States v. AmericanSearch
-
at 332 U. S. 229 (emphasis added). The passage quoted in text is soon followed by a cite to United States v. CrescentSearch
-
Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Although the plaintiff apparently never acquiesced in the resale price maintenance scheme, Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. JosephSearch
-
relief, whether or not it could have when Kiefer-Stewart was decided. See Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
United States v. ParkeSearch
-
See United States v. TimkenSearch
-
United States v. GrinnellSearch
-
Brunswick Corp. v. PuebloSearch
-
quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Schwimmer v. SonySearch
-
Tose v. FirstSearch
-
Morton Buildings of Nebraska, Inc. v. MortonSearch
-
Greenville Publishing Co. v. DailySearch
-
Chapman v. RuddSearch
-
Poller v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. MotorolaSearch
-
courts have created an exception for corporate officers acting on their own behalf. See, e.g., H & B Equipment Co. v. InternationalSearch
-
Johnston v. BakerSearch
-
Cliff Food Stores, Inc. v. KrogerSearch
-
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. HawaiianSearch
-
The Court left this issue unresolved in Poller v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Ogilvie v. FotomatSearch
-
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. SummaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Copperweld v. IndependenceSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial