Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

How this document has been cited

It is well established that covenants not to compete do not violate the antitrust laws so long as they are reasonable.
- in Cesnik v. Chrysler Corp., 1980 and 64 similar citations
Second, the restraint must be " `reasonably necessary'to achiev [e] that transaction's pro-competitive purpose. "Id
- in Snow v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., 2022 and 64 similar citations
"Non-ancillary" restraints are usually the subject of antitrust action under the Sherman Act, while "ancillary" restraints are usually left to state law.
The "ancillary restraints" that are often important to collaborative ventures, such as agreements between the collaborators not to compete against their joint venture, are also assessed under the rule of reason.
—covenants in restraint of trade include all of those upheld as valid at the common law; but it would certainly seem to follow from the tests laid down for determining the validity of such an agreement that no conventional restraint of trade can be enforced unless the covenant embodying it is merely ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract, and necessary to protect …
- in Shakey's Incorporated v. Martin, 1967 and 81 similar citations
To be lawful,] the contract must be one in which there is a main purpose, to which the covenant in restraint of trade is merely ancillary.
When two partners set the price of their goods or services they are literally "price fixing," but they are not per se in violation of the Sherman Act.
As announced callously by defendants and above quoted, after they harassed plaintiff into submission they intended moving along to the next processor, with the unmistakable objective, found by the trial judge, of destroying their major competitor, Dairymen's Co-Operative Sales Association and taking over the Western Pennsylvania milk products field.
Courts reviewing complex business arrangements should, in other words, be wary about invitations to "set sail on a sea of doubt."
And in general the liability of stockholders to assessment under local statutes is deemed transitory in nature, enforceable by common-law remedies in states other than that of the corporation, although special statutory forms of remedy given by the local statute could not be resorted to elsewhere.
- in Shriver v. Woodbine Savings Bank, 1932 and 33 similar citations

Cited by

792 F. 2d 210 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1986
261 F. Supp. 2d 188 - Dist. Court, ED New York 2003
83 F. Supp. 284 - Dist. Court, ND Ohio 1949
354 SW 3d 764 - Tex: Supreme Court 2011
Tex: Supreme Court 2011
618 F. 3d 300 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010
Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010
863 P. 2d 1052 - NM: Supreme Court 1993
795 F. Supp. 122 - Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 1992