Thal v. Commonwealth Financial Corp.
Thal v. Commonwealth Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 961 (1969)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that “loss leader” sales in that case did not give rise to dangerous probability of monopoly)
-
(surveying cases and noting that percentages greater than 70 percent generally are found to constitute monopoly power.)
-
(“In testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint . . . conclusions of law and unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted.”)
-
(twenty percent market share inadequate to allow exclusion of competition or control of prices)
-
(twenty percent insufficient for actual monopolization)
Cited by 97 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- People Against Nuclear Energy v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- United States v. Empire Gas Corporation
- Public Service Company Of New Hampshire v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Corp.
- Tmt Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland
- Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland
Most recent
- L.J. Zucca, Inc. v. Allen Bros. Wholesale Distributors inc.
- Milk Drivers, Dairy & Ice Cream Employees, Laundry & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Clerical & Allied Workers, Local Union No. 387 v. Roberts Dairy
- Asbury Square, L.L.C. v. Amoco Oil Co.
- Nuss v. Central Iowa Binding Corp.
- Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department
- Sophapmysay v. City of Sergeant Bluff
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.