U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1989

City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 22, 1989 · Farris, Poole, Schroeder

886 F.2d 246 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1995)
Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Manufacturing, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1991)
Arizona v. Standard Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The opinion filed April 17, 1989, Long Beach v. Standard Oil, 872 F.2d 1401 (9th *247Cir. 1989), is amended by striking the following language at page 1407, third full paragraph, 2d col., lines 7-10: “Unlike Matsushita, this is not a case of legitimate price competition or an implausible predatory pricing scheme. Cf. 475 U.S. [574] at 588-595 [106 S.Ct. 1348 at 1356-60, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)].” and substituting therefor, “See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 588-595 [106 S.Ct. at 1356-60].” With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellants’ petitions for rehearing and to reject the suggestions for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the amendment to the opinion and the suggestions for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)

The opinion in 86-5859/5860 is amended as set forth above, the petitions for rehearing are denied and the suggestions for rehearing en banc are rejected.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.