Legal Opinion
John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 25, 1987No. 84-1995PublishedCited by 214 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Dimidowich appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his antitrust action, in which he challenged Bell & Howell’s (“B & H”) policy of refusing to sell replacement parts for its microfilm equipment to independent companies that service B & H equipment. We affirm the dismissal of Dimidowich’s claims alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, unlawful tying, and unilateral refusal to deal. We reverse and remand the court’s dismissal of Dimidowich’s conspiracy claim.
I. BACKGROUND
B & H is the nation’s third largest manufacturer of microimagery…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by214 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- John Desoto v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- James L. Ticknor Janet Ticknor Larry Ticknor Tickco Holding, L.L.C. Ticknor Lodging Corporation v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
209 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.