Skip to main content
· 9/11/1984

Burrows v. Chemed Corp.

Citations

  • 743 F.2d 612
  • 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1410
  • 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18716
  • 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,631

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • basing its conclusion that competition had been displaced in part on the defeat in the state legislature of numerous attempts to deregulate
  • basing its conclusion that competition had been displaced in part on the defeat in the state legislature of numerous attempts to deregulate
  • finding anticompetitive conduct a foreseeable result of the creation of a utility
  • finding anticompetitive conduct a foreseeable result of the creation of a utility
  • statutory authorization for utility to price below cost and “do all things necessary” to exercise its powers contemplated anticompetitive conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.