United States v. N. Erlanger, Blumgart & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that where facts show that a defendant’s proffered explanation for its actions is, in fact, pretextual, it tends to support an inference of concerted action
• noting that the existence of concerted action is one of the important distinguishing features between a § 1 claim of conspiracy and a § 2 claim of monopolization
• finding that a trade association can be held liable under § 1 of the Sherman Act when the entity engages in such “concerted action”
• noting that the existence of concerted action is one of the important distinguishing features between a S 1 claim of conspiracy and a S 2 claim of monopolization
• noting that the existence of concerted action is one of the important distinguishing features between a § 1 claim of conspiracy and a § 2 claim of monopolization
• \[T]he meaning we ascribe to circumstantial evidence will vary depending on the challenged conduct.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).