Miller v. Hedlund

How courts have described this case

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

• “If the wholesale beer and wine distributors had entered into a private agreement to accomplish what is otherwise required by the Oregon regulations, there is no question that a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act would be found.”
• contrasting \unilateral” versus \concerted” activity under antitrust law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer
  Fourth Circuit· 2001-03-01· cited 50×
• Virginia Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of America, LLC and Virgina Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2007-09-18· cited 24×
• Miller v. Hedlund
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-04-06· cited 17×
• Canterbury Liquors & Pantry v. Sullivan
  D. Massachusetts· 1998-03-18· cited 17×
• Sanders v. Lockyer
  N.D. California· 2005-03-28· cited 7×
• Massachusetts Food Ass'n v. Sullivan
  D. Massachusetts· 1999-01-06· cited 7×
• USA Petroleum Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-08-12· cited 6×
• TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer
  D. Maryland· 2002-02-04· cited 4×
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Goodman
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 1990-09-21· cited 3×
• In Re G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1991-05-30· cited 3×
• Miller v. Hedlund
  D. Oregon· 1989-07-19· cited 1×
• Unnamed case
  Fourth Circuit· 2001-03-01
• Forrest City Grocery Company v. Tennessee Department of Revenue
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 1995-10-19
• Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen
  W.D. Washington· 2005-12-21