Legal Opinion
Gregory Marketing Corporation and Daniel Scher v. Wakefern Food Corporation and Red Cheek, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 26, 1986No. 85-5206PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ADAMS, Acting Chief Judge.
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, a seller ordinarily may not charge different buyers unequal prices for the same product. The issue in this appeal is whether a law suit challenging alleged price discrimination may be maintained under § 4 of the Clayton Act by a broker whose services were terminated for refusing to carry out a manufacturer’s allegedly unlawful discount for a preferred buyer. The district court dismissed the claim, ruling that the broker was not a proper party to bring suit under the antitrust laws. We agree, and therefore will affirm.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Blue Shield of Va. v. McCreadySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Norris v. Hearst TrustCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Alberta Gas Chemicals Limited and Alberta Gas Chemicals, Incorporated v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Du Pont Holdings, Inc., and Conoco IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.