OLSEN

v.

ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO.; AND ALWINE V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO.

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• MCI Commc'ns Corp. & MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …been feasibly provided. No legitimate business or technical reason was shown for AT & T’s denial of the requested interconnections. Cf., Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., 194 F. 2d 484, 487-88 & n. 3 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 817, 73 S.Ct. 11, 97 L.Ed. 636 (1952) (defendants may deny access to their building because of limited space or the applicant’s financial unsoundness). See generally, Comment, Refusals to Deal by Vertically Integrated Monopolists, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1720, 1…
• Mid-Texas Commc'ns Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …Co., 273 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684 (1927); United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383, 32 S.Ct. 507, 56 L.Ed. 810 (1912); Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., 194 F. 2d 484 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 817, 73 S.Ct. 11, 97 L.Ed. 636 (1952).12 [*1388] This court has considered competitor’s claims challenging a monopolist’s refusal to deal. In Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corp., 431 F. 2d 334 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 9…
• Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …s on non-discriminatory reasonable terms); Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg., Inc., 194 F. 2d 484 (1st Cir.) (fruit wholesalers who jointly own a warehouse may not exclude competing wholesaler, absent some justification), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 817, 73 S.Ct. 11, 97 L.Ed. 636 (1952)). Second, in various contexts courts have employed an intent test under which a “business is free to deal with whomever it pleases so long as it has no ‘purpose to create or maintain a monopoly.’ ” Byars, supra, 60…