This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Inglis (P) brought suit for a preliminary injunction against ITT (D) and other bakers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, and applicable California laws. P wanted to stop alleged below-cost pricing. D claimed that its pricing was a good faith effort to meet-comp (meet competitions’ pricing) and that was a valid defense under the statute. The district court denied the injunction on the ground that it was not convinced of the probability that P would succeed on the merits in that D had negated the violation with a valid defense. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.