DIMIDOWICH v. BELL HOWELL, 810 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987)
JOHN M. DIMIDOWICH, DBA MICRO IMAGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BELL HOWELL,DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 84-1995.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
February 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.
[1] ORDER
[2] Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.
[3] The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F.2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.
[4] 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."
[5] 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."
[6] All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.
Page 548