Search for: "State v. Patman" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jan 2016, 9:21 am by Thomas D. Nevins
  The court stated instead that it construed the Robinson-Patman Act “consistently with the broader policies of the antitrust laws. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 6:40 am
The third case in the trilogy of securities antitrust immunity, United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 4:09 pm
The food distributor asked the Supreme Court specifically whether, in order to establish competitive injury under the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff had to prove that the favored and disfavored purchasers bought discriminatorily priced products at the exact same moment at which they or their customers competed to resell those products.The petition is Feesers, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 10:52 am by Anna Christensen
Title: State of South Carolina v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 9:43 am
California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983).[6] Blue Shield v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 8:03 am
Reynolds, et al. -- immunity of wholesale discount prices to challenge under Robinson-Patman Act solely because they are available to all buyers. 06-1617, Gilles v. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 12:07 pm
The class action complaint alleged that the Blue Oval Program violated the Robinson-Patman Act, the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, and various state franchise laws. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 7:00 am by Timothy Sandefur, guest-blogging
Probably the most famous case about this issue is Nebbia v. [read post]