Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a past conspiracy among defendants did not establish a separate conspiracy between those same defendants where the past conspiracy involved different business practices and a different plaintiff, during a different time frame
• circumstantial evidence of parallel behavior is not enough to demonstrate conspiracy for the purposes of the Sherman Act
• \Circumstantial evidence of consciously parallel behavior may have made heavy inroads into the traditional judicial attitude toward conspiracy; but 'conscious parallelism' has not yet read conspiracy out of the act entirely.\
• “Circumstantial evidence of consciously parallel behavior may have made heavy inroads into the traditional judicial attitude toward conspiracy; but ‘conscious parallelism’ has not yet read conspiracy out of the act entirely.”
• “The crucial question is whether respondents’ conduct toward petitioner stemmed from independent decision or from an agreement, tacit or express.”
• “this Court has never held that proof of parallel business 20 ||behavior conclusively establishes agreement” without more

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).