SERTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES
SERTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
UNITED STATES
393 U.S. 534
Supreme Court of the United States (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1972)…ed States, 394 U. S. 131 (1969); United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U. S. 350 (1967); United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365, 390 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Serta Associates, Inc. v. United States, 393 U. S. 534 (1969), aff’g 296 F. Supp. 1121, 1128 (ND Ill. 1968). We think that it is clear that the restraint in this case is a horizontal one, and, therefore, a per se violation of § 1. The District Court failed to make any determination as to whether there…1 / 2
-
In re Nissan Antitrust Litigation. P. D. Q. v. Nissan Motor Corp. IN U. S. A. & Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 577 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1978)…ution, the outcome depending on whether No. 1 was a per se violation of the applicable law. PDQ says that a per se violation was established under teachings of United States v. Serta Associates, Inc., 296 F.Supp. 1121 (N.D.Ill., 1968), affirmed in, 393 U.S. 534, 89 S.Ct. 870, 21 L.Ed.2d 753 (1969), and United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350, 87 S.Ct. 1847, 18 L.Ed.2d 1238 (1967). Sealy arrived at the Supreme Court before Serta. Sealy “was engaged in a continuing conspiracy with its manufacturer-licens…