The Irvine Co. v. Super. Ct.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that vertical minimum price-fixing agreements, like vertical maximum price-fixing agreements, “should be evaluated under the traditional rule of reason”
• holding that “a per se rule of unlawfulness” is inappropriate for “judg[ing] vertical price restraints” and overruling cases to the contrary
• recognizing that a bid-rigging agreement among competitors is a per se violation of the Sherman Act
• holding that the rule of reason rather than per se illegality applies to vertical price restraints
• holding that vertical agreements for minimum prices are not per se violations
• holding that per se treatment is inappropriate where \it cannot be stated with any degree of confidence that [the challenged restraint] 'always or almost always tends to restrict competition and decrease output' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).