Legal Opinion
Purex Corporation v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and the Clorox Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 11, 1979No. 76-3205PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge:
Purex Corporation (“Purex”) appeals from a judgment in favor of The Procter & Gamble Company (“Procter”) in an action by Purex seeking damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) for claimed violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18) and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2). We vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further consideration in the light of Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (1977) 429 U.S. 477, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701; Greyhound Computer Corp. v. International Business…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- International Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. Western Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Robert's Waikiki U-Drive, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1980
- Ming Wang v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Monfort of Colorado, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. And Excel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.