Unification Church v. Bell
Unification Church v. Bell, Attorney General
Unification Church v. Bell, 439 U.S. 828 (1978)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(proof of predatory conduct can in some circumstances permit inferences of specific intent and dangerous probability of success)
-
("Thus, as stated in Hanson, average variable cost can be used as evidence of marginal cost.")
-
(affirmance of directed verdict where plaintiff presented evidence of prices below cost of merchandise sold rather than average variable cost)
-
(vigorous competition resulting in efficient firms driving less efficient firms out of business not proscribed by the anti-trust laws)
Cited by 133 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc.
- Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc. And Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
- Island Tobacco Co. v. R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
- California Computer Products, Inc. And Century Data Systems, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation
- Northeastern Telephone Company v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
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.