Citation network
Atlantic Richfield Vs. Usa Petroleum
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 1990
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
-
Atlantic Richfield v. USASearch
-
Petroleum - 495 U.S. 328 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Atlantic Richfield v. USASearch
-
Petroleum, 495 U.S. 328 (1990) Atlantic Richfield Company v. USASearch
-
it is inimical to the antitrust laws to award damages for losses stemming from continued competition. Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
harmful effects on dealers and consumers that rendered vertical, maximum price-fixing per se illegal in Albrecht v. HeroldSearch
-
Brunswick Corp. v. PuebloSearch
-
Ibid. (emphasis in original). In Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
Brunswick, supra, 429 U.S. at 429 U. S. 488 ). See also Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
J. Truett Payne Co. v. ChryslerSearch
-
antitrust injury test in this case. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. A In Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
Matsushita Electric Industrial Corp. v. ZenithSearch
-
Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
liability. See generally Copperweld Corp. v. IndependenceSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Arizona v. MaricopaSearch
-
injury. We have adhered to this principle regardless of the type of antitrust claim involved. In Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
predatory, we found no antitrust injury. Similarly, we determined that antitrust injury was absent in Brunswick Corp. v. PuebloSearch
-
Cargill, 479 U.S. at 479 U. S. 116 (quoting Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.ESearch
-
FTC v. SuperiorSearch
-
Lawyers Assn., 493 U. S. 411 , 493 U. S. 433 (1990) (quoting Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. HydeSearch
-
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
NCAA v. BoardSearch
-
n. 7 (citing Brunswick ) (emphasis added). Similarly, in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. CarpenterSearch
-
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. ZenithSearch
-
Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574 , 475 U. S. 587 (1986) (quoting United States v. DieboldSearch
-
See Indiana Grocery, Inc. v. SuperSearch
-
Local Beauty Supply, Inc. v. LamaurSearch
-
Jack Walters & Sons Corp. v. MortonSearch
-
in which the Court has confronted an unadulterated vertical, maximum price fixing arrangement. In Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. JosephSearch
-
among dealers. The restraint in Kiefer-Stewart had an additional horizontal component, however, see Arizona v. MaricopaSearch
-
Cf. United States v. TopcoSearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
s theory would equate injury in fact with antitrust injury. We declined to adopt such an approach in Brunswick Corp. v. PuebloSearch
-
Bowl-O-Mat., 429 U. S. 477 (1977), and Cargill Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
with them, while forcing competing dealers to bear by themselves the full loss imposed by the lower prices. Cf. FTC v. SunSearch
-
We did not reach a contrary conclusion in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. ZenithSearch
-
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
of Oklahoma, 468 U. S. 85 , 468 U. S. 103 (1984) (quoting National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
effects even if it is per se illegal because of its potential effects on dealers and consumers. See Albrecht v. HeraldSearch
-
United States v. ArnoldSearch
-
subject only to rule-of-reason scrutiny, making monopolistic behavior by dealers more likely. See Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
See Simpson v. UnionSearch
-
Oil Co. of California, 377 U. S. 13 , 377 U. S. 16 (1964) (quoting Radovich v. NationalSearch
-
is intended to forbid price-fixing conspiracies that are designed to drive competitors out of the market. See Klor's v. Broadway-HaleSearch
-
similarly, in Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Atlantic Richfield v. USASearch
-
Atlantic Richfield Company v. USASearch
-
Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial