OpenJurist

810 F2d 1517 Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell

810 F.2d 1517

1988-2 Trade Cases 68,289

John M. DIMIDOWICH, dba Micro Image, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BELL & HOWELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-1995.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 25, 1987.

Robert F. Koehler, Jr., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, John R. Reese, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

2

The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F.2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.

3

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."

4

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."

5

All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.