Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., 194 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1952),[1] is a 1952 First Circuit decision in the United States.
Quick Facts Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., Court ...
Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |
Full case name | Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., et al. |
Decided | February 13, 1952 |
Citation(s) | 194 F.2d 484 |
Case history | |
Subsequent history | Cert. denied, 344 U.S. 817 (1952). |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Charles Edward Clark, Peter Woodbury, Francis Ford |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Clark, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Sherman Antitrust Act |
Close
It holds that an organization controlling a building that served as the centralized market for the wholesaling of fresh produce in Providence, Rhode Island, violated the antitrust laws when it unjustifiably expelled the plaintiff produce dealer Gamco and refused to allow it to rent space in the facility.
The court does not mention the term "essential facility." but this is an important essential facility doctrine case.[2]