Harold Bruce London v. Fieldale Farms Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on breach of contract claim where “[plaintiffs] did not support their claim with any reference to a specific contract provision that they allege [defendants] breached”
• “Eliminating the competitive impact requirement would ignore the long-time antitrust policies which formed the backbone of the PSA’s creation.”
• “We note that elimination of a competitive impact requirement would subvert the policy justifications for the PSA’s adoption.”
• “Failure to require a competitive impact showing would subject dealers to liability under the PSA for simple breach of contract. . . .”
• “At the time Congress enacted the PSA, the chief evil feared was the monopoly of the packers, enabling them unduly and arbitrarily to lower prices to the shipper, who sells, and unduly and arbitrarily to increase the price to the consumer, who buys.” (quotations and alternations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).