Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,848 times 2 Legal AnalysesConcluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
United States v. Gypsum Co.
333 U.S. 364 (1948) Cited 10,432 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.
495 U.S. 328 (1990) Cited 834 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"
Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko
540 U.S. 398 (2004) Cited 506 times 54 Legal AnalysesHolding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.
570 U.S. 136 (2013) Cited 305 times 91 Legal AnalysesHolding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) Cited 800 times 82 Legal AnalysesHolding the employer is required to provide a meal period to employees, but "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed"
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.
14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) Cited 839 times 6 Legal AnalysesAdopting a “substantial nexus or connection” approach in applying the California long-arm statute and, in rejecting other approaches, questioning the wisdom “of importing a causation test from tort law to measure a matter that is fundamentally one of relationship and fairness rather than causation”
California Dental Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission
526 U.S. 756 (1999) Cited 203 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that full rule of reason analysis was required where challenged restraint "might plausibly be thought to have a net procompetitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition"
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Stiffel Co.
376 U.S. 225 (1964) Cited 557 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that state unfair competition law cannot be applied to "give protection of a kind that clashes with the objectives of the federal patent laws"
D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners
11 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974) Cited 1,063 timesIn D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 520 P.2d 10 (Cal. 1974), the state Supreme Court held that the 1962 initiative Act's prohibition of future licensing of osteopaths violated the Equal Protection Clause of both the federal and state constitutions, because the state could not demonstrate a rational relation to a legitimate governmental objective.
Section 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
28 U.S.C. § 1295 Cited 8,300 times 92 Legal AnalysesGranting jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit over cases arising from executive agency board of contract appeals
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,896 times 133 Legal AnalysesGranting a presumption of validity to patents
Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission
15 U.S.C. § 45 Cited 3,854 times 557 Legal AnalysesProviding court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"