From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

U.S.
Feb 2, 1970
396 U.S. 1062 (1970)

Summary

holding that the replacement of one exclusive distributor for another fell under a rule of reason rather than a per se rule

Summary of this case from Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd.

Opinion

No. 818.

February 2, 1970, OCTOBER TERM, 1969.


C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Joseph L. Alioto and Peter J. Donnici for petitioner. J. Garner Anthony for Joseph E. Seagram Sons, Inc., et al., Herbert Y. C. Choy for Barton Distilling Co. et al., and Livingston Jenks for McKesson Robbins, Inc., respondents. Reported below: 416 F. 2d 71.


Summaries of

Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

U.S.
Feb 2, 1970
396 U.S. 1062 (1970)

holding that the replacement of one exclusive distributor for another fell under a rule of reason rather than a per se rule

Summary of this case from Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd.

finding no per se illegal group boycott where distillers' agreement to terminate distributor manifested no anticompetitive intent

Summary of this case from Smith v. Pro Football, Inc.

recognizing this general rule but holding that purely intra-corporate conspiracy is not enough to invoke it

Summary of this case from Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd.
Case details for

Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HAWAIIAN OKE LIQUORS, Ltd. v. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM SONS, Inc., et al

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 2, 1970

Citations

396 U.S. 1062 (1970)

Citing Cases

GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Continental T. V., Inc.

388 U.S. at 382, 87 S.Ct. at 1867, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1262. We reiterate our view that this language, in…

Chastain v. American Telephone Telegraph Co.

Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 593, 71 S.Ct. 971, 95 L.Ed. 1199 (1951); Kiefer-Stewart…