509:
31:
108:
584:
444:
306:
264:
72:
270:
594:
579:
574:
569:
550:
516:
35:
278:
589:
455:
244:
121:
A publisher selling only combined insertions appearing in both its morning and evening papers does not violate the
543:
508:
104:
491:
448:
310:
252:
226:
64:
402:
Wollenberg, Keith K. (1987). "An
Economic Analysis of Tie-In Sales: Re-Examining the Leverage Theory".
536:
473:
404:
155:
421:
390:
345:
328:
179:
167:
482:
171:
159:
520:
464:
413:
382:
373:
337:
283:
326:
Turner, Donald F. (1958). "The
Validity of Tying Arrangements under the Antitrust Laws".
368:
313:
191:
139:
563:
240:
183:
67:
122:
147:
83:
251:
sale of morning and evening newspaper advertising space does not violate the
79:
101:
425:
349:
394:
248:
417:
341:
386:
30:
255:, because there was no market dominance in the tying product.
111:
1952); probable jurisdiction noted, 73 S. Ct. 173 (1952).
524:
585:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
265:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 345
220:
212:
208:
Clark, joined by Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson
204:
199:
128:
115:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
369:"Tie-ins, Reciprocity, and the Leverage Theory"
441:Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
303:Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
236:Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
54:Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
24:Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
544:
274:(1984), a case involving "tying arrangements"
271:Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde
8:
551:
537:
20:
216:Burton, joined by Black, Douglas, Minton
295:
18:1953 United States Supreme Court case
7:
505:
503:
247:. In a 5–4 decision it held that a
523:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
517:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
595:United States Supreme Court stubs
580:United States Supreme Court cases
451:594 (1953) is available from:
575:United States antitrust case law
507:
29:
570:1953 in United States case law
367:Markovits, Richard S. (1967).
1:
239:, 345 U.S. 594 (1953), is an
515:This article related to the
279:United States v. Loew's Inc.
245:United States Supreme Court
611:
502:
225:
133:
120:
28:
590:Business ethics cases
253:Sherman Antitrust Act
227:Sherman Antitrust Act
43:Argued March 11, 1953
45:Decided May 24, 1953
492:Library of Congress
405:Stanford Law Review
329:Harvard Law Review
282:(1962), a case on
168:William O. Douglas
144:Associate Justices
78:73 S. Ct. 872; 97
532:
531:
232:
231:
172:Robert H. Jackson
160:Felix Frankfurter
602:
553:
546:
539:
511:
504:
496:
490:
487:
481:
478:
472:
469:
463:
460:
454:
429:
398:
381:(7): 1397–1472.
374:Yale Law Journal
354:
353:
323:
317:
300:
284:product bundling
243:decision by the
180:Harold H. Burton
129:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
610:
609:
605:
604:
603:
601:
600:
599:
560:
559:
558:
557:
500:
494:
488:
485:
479:
476:
470:
467:
461:
458:
452:
436:
418:10.2307/1228764
401:
366:
363:
361:Further reading
358:
357:
342:10.2307/1338363
325:
324:
320:
301:
297:
292:
261:
182:
170:
158:
156:Stanley F. Reed
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
608:
606:
598:
597:
592:
587:
582:
577:
572:
562:
561:
556:
555:
548:
541:
533:
530:
529:
512:
498:
497:
474:Google Scholar
435:
434:External links
432:
431:
430:
412:(3): 737–760.
399:
387:10.2307/794828
362:
359:
356:
355:
318:
294:
293:
291:
288:
287:
286:
275:
267:
260:
257:
230:
229:
223:
222:
218:
217:
214:
210:
209:
206:
202:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
192:Sherman Minton
145:
142:
140:Fred M. Vinson
137:
131:
130:
126:
125:
118:
117:
113:
112:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
607:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
567:
565:
554:
549:
547:
542:
540:
535:
534:
528:
526:
522:
518:
513:
510:
506:
501:
493:
484:
475:
466:
457:
456:CourtListener
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
433:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
370:
365:
364:
360:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
322:
319:
315:
312:
308:
304:
299:
296:
289:
285:
281:
280:
276:
273:
272:
268:
266:
263:
262:
258:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:antitrust law
238:
237:
228:
224:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:Case opinions
198:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
146:
143:
141:
138:
136:Chief Justice
135:
134:
132:
127:
124:
119:
114:
110:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
525:expanding it
514:
499:
440:
409:
403:
378:
372:
336:(1): 50–75.
333:
327:
321:
316: (1953).
302:
298:
277:
269:
235:
234:
233:
221:Laws applied
187:
184:Tom C. Clark
175:
163:
151:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
123:Sherman Act
82:1277; 1953
564:Categories
290:References
148:Hugo Black
84:U.S. LEXIS
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
439:Text of
259:See also
205:Majority
109:E.D. La.
102:F. Supp.
465:Findlaw
426:1228764
350:1338363
213:Dissent
116:Holding
495:
489:
486:
483:Justia
480:
477:
471:
468:
462:
459:
453:
424:
395:794828
393:
348:
305:,
249:tie-in
190:
188:·
186:
178:
176:·
174:
166:
164:·
162:
154:
152:·
150:
519:is a
447:
422:JSTOR
391:JSTOR
346:JSTOR
309:
97:Prior
521:stub
449:U.S.
311:U.S.
100:105
86:2716
73:more
65:U.S.
63:345
445:345
414:doi
383:doi
338:doi
314:594
307:345
105:670
68:594
566::
443:,
420:.
410:39
408:.
389:.
379:76
377:.
371:.
344:.
334:72
332:.
552:e
545:t
538:v
527:.
428:.
416::
397:.
385::
352:.
340::
107:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.