Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell

John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell, 810 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1987-02-25
Topic: antitrust

“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

Citator

Cited by: 38 opinions

DIMIDOWICH v. BELL HOWELL,810 F.2d 1517(9th Cir. 1987)

JOHN M. DIMIDOWICH, DBA MICRO IMAGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BELL HOWELL,

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 84-1995.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 25, 1987.

Robert F. Koehler, Jr., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown Enersen, John R. Reese, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

[1]ORDER

[2] Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

[3] The opinion, filed November 6, 1986,803 F.2d 1473is modified as set forth following.

[4] 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."

[5] 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."

[6] All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.Page 548