Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2023Borenstein v. The Animal Foundation D. Nev.
- 2022State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Clark D. Idaho
- 2021Rosenman v. Facebook Inc. N.D. Cal.
- 2021State of Washington v. Matheson Flight Extenders Inc W.D. Wash.
- 2020(PS) Schmitz v. Asman E.D. Cal.
- 2020Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation W.D.N.Y.
- 2018In re Myford Touch Consumer Litig. N.D. Cal.
- 2018In re Remicade Antitrust Litig. E.D. Pa.
- 2016Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC 9th Cir.
- 2013Khan v. K2 Pure Solutions, LP N.D. Cal.
Cites 1 case
- Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
John M. DIMIDOWICH, dba Micro Image, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELL & HOWELL, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorneys
- Robert F. Koehler, Jr., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
- McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, John R. Reese, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
ORDER
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F.2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.
Insert on page 1478 second column line 17 of 803 F.2d before Nonetheless: “It will thus be rare for a court to infer a vertical combination solely from a business’s unilateral refusal to deal with distributors or customers who do not comply with certain conditions.”
Delete on page 1478 second column second line from bottom: “necessary to show a combination between himself and B & H” and replace with “necessary to infer a vertical combination from a unilateral refusal to deal.”
All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.