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
How later courts describe this case
- “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
UpLaw has not yet analyzed John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 94 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.
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