Citation network
Bus. Electr. Corp. Vs. Sharp Electr. Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 1988
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
-
Bus. Electr. Corp. v. SharpSearch
-
Electr. Corp. - 485 U.S. 717 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Bus. Electr. Corp. v. SharpSearch
-
Electr. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) Business Electronics Corp. v. SharpSearch
-
must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than upon formalistic line drawing. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
prohibit only unreasonable restraints of trade. National Collegiate Page 485 U. S. 724 Athletic Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. PacificSearch
-
Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 , 473 U. S. 289 -290 (1985), quoting Broadcast Music, Inc. v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1 , 441 U. S. 19 -20 (1979). See also FTC v. IndianaSearch
-
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
Although vertical agreements on resale prices have been illegal per se since Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. JohnSearch
-
the scope of per se illegality should be narrow in the context of vertical restraints. In Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
as to justify per se illegality. Id. at 220 U. S. 58 , quoting Northern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
market-freeing effect of our decision in GTE Sylvania is not frustrated by related legal rules. In Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
in the future, obstructs both formation and adherence by making cheating easier. Cf. Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. ZenithSearch
-
was well recognized at the time the Sherman Act was enacted. See Gibbs v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. JohnSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
McNally v. UnitedSearch
-
Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
this Court's understanding of pre-Sherman Act common law, petitioner refers to our decision in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. JohnSearch
-
resale restriction was an unlawful restraint on alienation. See ibid. As we explained in Boston Store of Chicago v. AmericanSearch
-
on alienation, was found by the jury, so the common law rationale of Dr. Miles does not apply. Cf. United States v. GeneralSearch
-
S. 734 thus to be per se illegal) though they did not set prices or price levels, see, e.g., Catalano, Inc. v. TargetSearch
-
as it had to be, since a horizontal agreement to divide territories is per se illegal, see United States v. TopcoSearch
-
U. S. 608 (1972), while GTE Sylvania held that a vertical agreement to do so is not. See also United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
White Motor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
our two cases holding per se illegal a group boycott of a dealer because of its price cutting. See United States v. GeneralSearch
-
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-HaleSearch
-
manufacturer and wholesaler levels. Accord, GTE Sylvania, supra, at 433 U. S. 58 , n. 28, United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
supra, at 372 U. S. 263 . Page 485 U. S. 735 Third, petitioner contends, relying on Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968), and United States v. ParkeSearch
-
The Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have agreed with the analysis of the Fifth. See Morrison v. MurraySearch
-
McCabe's Furniture, Inc. v. La-Z-BoySearch
-
Westman Commission Co. v. HobartSearch
-
cert. pending, No. 86-484. Decisions of the Third and Ninth Circuits have disagreed. See Cernuto, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Zidell Explorations, Inc. v. ConvalSearch
-
power is rare, because of the usual presence of interbrand competition and other dealers, see Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
restraint is an agreement by the seller of a business not to compete within the market. See Mitchel v. ReynoldsSearch
-
United States v. AddystonSearch
-
so that the dissent's line for per se illegality fails to meet the requirement of Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
that legal rules in this area should be designed to avoid. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
in Cernuto, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
has been a part of our law since the landmark opinion written by Judge (later Chief Justice) Taft in United States v. AddystonSearch
-
The Rule of Reason suggested by Mitchel v. ReynoldsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bus. Electr. Corp. v. SharpSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial