Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 810 F.2d 1517, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17851

Decision Date: 2/25/1987

Docket Number: No. 84-1995

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 810 F.2d 1517, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17851 (9th Cir. 1987)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 1987

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.

majority

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.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.