John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell
John M. DIMIDOWICH, Dba Micro Image, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELL & HOWELL, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
ORDER Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F.2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.
Insert on page 1478 second column line 17 of 803 F.2d before Nonetheless: “It will thus be rare for a court to infer a vertical combination solely from a business’s unilateral refusal to deal with distributors or customers who do not comply with certain conditions.”
Delete on page 1478 second column second line from bottom: “necessary to show a combination between himself and B & H” and replace with “necessary to infer a vertical combination from a unilateral refusal to deal.”
All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“hybrid” arrangement, composed of both a dual distributorship and horizontal competitor relationship, should be analyzed under the rule of reason)
-
(conspiracy based on coercion actionable under California law)
Cited by 86 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.