Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Ninth Circuit· 2/25/1987

John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell

Citations

  • 803 F.2d 1473

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “under 15 the Sherman Act, rule of reason analysis would be appropriate for the ‘hybrid’ 16 conspiracy”
  • concluding that the Supreme Court of California would not follow the decision of an appellate court because its analysis was \flawed\
  • writing that a federal appellate court “will follow a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own statute in the absence of extraordinary circumstances”
  • explaining that dual distributorships are vertical and 21 analyzed under the rule of reason
  • explaining that dual distributorships are vertical and 21 analyzed under the rule of reason
  • stating that in a diversity case where “the state’s highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how the state high court would resolve it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fletcher, Boochever, Norris

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

144 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

67 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & Howell

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

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.