Washington Gas Light Company v. Virginia Electric and Power Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, “if deemed necessary to reach the correct result, an appellate court may sua sponte consider points not presented to the district court and not even raised on appeal by any party”
• where the court held VEPCO's practice of providing homebuilders with inexpensive underground service installations on condition that builders erect a primarily electricity-served home was not an unlawful tie because of the lack of two separate markets
• “[I]f deemed necessary to reach the correct result, an appellate court may sua sponte consider points not presented to the district court and not even raised on appeal by any party.”
• where the court held VEPCO’s practice of providing homebuilders with inexpensive underground service installations on condition that builders erect a primarily electricity-served home was not an unlawful tie because of the lack of two separate markets
• “[T]he rationale and underlying purpose of both the Sherman and Clayton Acts is to prevent monopoly where it is not in the public interest. It has long since been established that both gas and electricity can best be produced and distributed (and the public benefited
• “if deemed necessary it is the only way to reconcile the imposition of damages to reach the correct result, an appellate court may sua sponte under § 1640(a) with the excuse of certain violations under consider points not presented to the district court and not even §1640(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).