Citation network
California Vs. American Stores Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 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
- Distinguished
-
California v. AmericanSearch
-
Stores Co. - 495 U.S. 271 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court California v. AmericanSearch
-
Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990) California v. AmericanSearch
-
narrowly. American's reliance on the subcommittee hearing excerpts cited by the Court of Appeals and on Graves v. CambriaSearch
-
harm. Nevertheless, on the authority of its earlier decision in International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. GeneralSearch
-
this decision and the earlier holding of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. ARCOSearch
-
United States v. E.1Search
-
regardless of whether they were mandatory or prohibitory in character. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
Silver v. NewSearch
-
Ibid., quoting Hecht Co. v. BowlesSearch
-
emphasis supplied). See Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
it was an integral part of the congressional plan for protecting competition. See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
as the principal guide to the construction of the Sherman Act's general language. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
For similar reasons, we need not consider how much weight might otherwise be due to Graves v. CambriaSearch
-
See Page 495 U. S. 295 Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc., 754 F.2d at 418-427. As the Court stated in Hecht Co. v. BowlesSearch
-
More recently, in Weinberger v. Romero-BarceloSearch
-
Id., quoting Porter v. WarnerSearch
-
Virginia R. Co. v. RailwaySearch
-
United States v. SanSearch
-
to his own interests in order to obtain relief. See Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
which had to incorporate standing limits appropriate to private action -- see Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
-
or occurred, but rather to expand their availability against harms that are as yet unrealized. See Zenith Radio Co v. HazeltineSearch
-
agreeing with the District Court that the Standard Oil dissolution decree, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. UnitedSearch
-
FTC v. WesternSearch
-
People v. NorthSearch
-
decades, dissolution and divestiture have been treated as interchangeable terms in antitrust law. See United States v. E.ISearch
-
of the Act. See, e.g., Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric Co. v. FTCSearch
-
the remedy being sought. By 1944, Justice Douglas was using the two terms in close proximity, see United States v. CrescentSearch
-
usage preserved the technical distinction that was to be generally elided less than a decade later. Cf. Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. DuPontSearch
-
American also seeks to buttress its position by citations to Fleitmann v. WelsbachSearch
-
General Investment Co. v. LakeSearch
-
Continental Securities Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
and Venner v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. AmericanSearch
-
Graves v. CambriaSearch
-
International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. GeneralSearch
-
Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. ARCOSearch
-
See Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
Silver v. NewSearch
-
See Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. UnitedSearch
-
Porter v. WarnerSearch
-
Virginia R. Co. v. RailwaySearch
-
See Cargill, Inc. v. MonfortSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial