WEINBERGER

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OF FLORIDA; WEINBERGER V. TROMBETTA ET AL.; AND WEINBERGER V. UNITED STATES; ROGERS V. CHILIVIS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF GEORGIA; PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. ASHLAND OIL, INC., ET AL.; COLLINS V. ARKANSAS; GREENE V. UNITED STATES; MORGAN V. TENNESSEE; ADAMS V. FLORIDA; ROYAL V. BERGLAND, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.; NASIM V. MARYLAND; BENNETT V. DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR NORTH CAROLINA ET AL.; FAHRIG V. JENEFSKY; HENDERSON V. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY; WALLACE V. PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS; SEVERA V. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA; WISE V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1984)
  …view. Adams v. State, 341 So. 2d 765, 769 (1976) (affirming death sentence and citing Dixon for proposition that role of court is to independently review circumstances in particular case and determine whether death sentence warranted), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 977 (1977); Funchess v. State, 341 So. 2d 762, 763 (1976) (affirming death sentence weighing circumstances in case before it), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 878 (1977); Chambers v. State, 339 So. 2d 204 (1976) (per curiam) (reversing death sentence based on c…
• O. Hommel Co. v. Ferro Corp., 659 F.2d 340 (3d Cir. 1981)
  …he “double-inference” test. “From below-cost pricing, predatory intent is inferred; from the finding of predation, injury to competition is inferred.” Pacific Engineering & Prod. Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 551 F. 2d 790, 798 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 977, 98 S.Ct. 543, 54 L.Ed.2d 472 (1977). Initially, we must define predatory intent. The legislative history of the Clayton Act indicates that predatory intent is an intent to destroy a rival with the ultimate purpose of acquiring a monopoly in a part…
• Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 615 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …the opportunity to use a solely marginal cost-based test for predatory pricing. Pacific Engineering & Production Co. of Nevada v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 551 F. 2d 790 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 879, 98 S.Ct. 234, 54 L.Ed.2d 160 rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 977, 98 S.Ct. 543, 54 L.Ed.2d 472 (1977). Moreover, Areeda and Turner admit a willingness to allow damage to competition and the destruction, by one competitor, of equally efficient competitors as long as prices remain at or above marginal costs. Their…