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.

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

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.