Nix v. Hedden status of the cucumber, squash, pea, and bean. "Nix" has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. ("Sonn v. Maggone," ; "Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger," ; and "Cadwalader v. Zeh," ). Additionally, in "JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc.," 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to "Nix" aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case: In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited "Nix" as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the
Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. attempted monopolization instead of "in terms of a conspiracy among competing wholesalers to monopolize the wholesale fruit and vegetable business of Providence by excluding competition deemed undesirable," as for example in "United States v. Terminal Railroad Association. ● A.D. Neale characterized the "Gamco" case as holding: "The Sherman Act requires that where facilities cannot practically be duplicated by would-be competitors, those in possession of them must allow them to be shared on fair terms. It is illegal restraint of trade to foreclose the scarce facility." Essential facilities doctrine Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. Gamco, Inc. v.