Pacific Coast European Conference v. United States
Pac. Coast European Conference v. United States, 382 U.S. 958 (1965)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Dow Chemical Co. et al. to be added as parties respondent granted. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(recognizing that section 2(a) protects injury to competition as well as injury to competitors)
-
(processing of fluid milk negligible in terms of time and chemical change, fairly predictable demands of specific retail customers)
-
(an approximate five percent advantage was sufficient, even though resale prices were not affected)
-
(the milk underwent 'rather negligible processing,' so the 'flow of commerce' was not interrupted)
Cited by 90 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Boise Cascade Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- United States v. Pacific Coast European Conference
- National Dairy Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission
- United States v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
- In re Loughran
- United States v. Pacific Coast European Conference, and Its Member Lines, United States of America v. Pacific Coast River Plate Brazil Conference, and Its Member Lines, United States of America v. Latin America/pacific Coast S.S. Conference, and Its Member Lines
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.