Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.

Ninth Circuit

Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.

289 F.2d 933

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 284 F.2d 1 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 5, 1961·No. No. 15242·Published

Opinion

Upon petitions for rehearing by both appellants and appellees, we modify the opinion heretofore filed as follows:

I. The balance of the first full sentence after the word “or”, page 24, line 4, of slip opinion [284 F.2d 17], is stricken, and inserted in its place is the following :

“ * * * (2) the alleged illegal sole trader decision not to sell, made when such refusal would, as a natural consequence, illegally restrain trade or commerce, and implemented by other illegal means beyond the • bare refusal, or '(3) a similar unilateral decision not to sell, except'at a fixed price, made from a monopoly position, and resulting, as a natural consequence, in the elimination of a competitor”

II. On page 50, line T8 from top of slip opinion.[284 F.2d 33], the language “and a sale on account thereof already set,” is deleted.

The petitions for rehearing are severally denied. The suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon petitions for rehearing by both appellants and appellees, we modify the opinion heretofore filed as follows:

I. The balance of the first full sentence after the word “or”, page 24, line 4, of slip opinion [284 F.2d 17], is stricken, and inserted in its place is the following :

“ * * * (2) the alleged illegal sole trader decision not to sell, made when such refusal would, as a natural consequence, illegally restrain trade or commerce, and implemented by other illegal means beyond the • bare refusal, or '(3) a similar unilateral decision not to sell, except'at a fixed price, made from a monopoly position, and resulting, as a natural consequence, in the elimination of a competitor”

II. On page 50, line T8 from top of slip opinion.[284 F.2d 33], the language “and a sale on account thereof already set,” is deleted.

The petitions for rehearing are severally denied. The suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 289 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

289 F.2d 933 (Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related