General Electric Co. v. Hygrade Sylvania Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “firm and resolute” enforcement need not be shown when a distributorship agreement contains a designation of an area of primary responsibility
• finding that the requisite combination existed on the basis of firm and resolute enforcement of restrictions and the inferable acquiescence of those coerced
• noting that liability “means that one has violated the . . . laws and that violation has resulted in an injury to the business or property of the plaintiff, i.e., there was fact of damage”
• coercion required when lease agreement specifies that franchisee free to obtain putative tied product from any source
• coercion required when lease agreement specifies that franchisee free to obtain putative tied product from any source
• must be some evidence showing casual link, in order to establish liability in antitrust case, before reaching question of amount of damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).