Legal Opinion
City of Burlington v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 5, 1963No. Civ. A. Nos. 348-62 to 350-62, 359-62 to 365-62, 405-62 to 410-62, 420-62 to 427-62, 432-62 to 438-62, and 2829-62PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIRICA, District Judge.
In 32 of the 461 treble damage antitrust suits instituted under Section 42 of the Clayton Act and now pending in this Court, defendants have joined in support of a motion under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike all claims for injuries accruing prior to the four-year period of limitation as provided in Section 4B3 and 5(b) 4 of the Clayton Act, and all allega*499tions of fraudulent concealment. In the alternative defendants move, pursuant to Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order or judgment dismissing such claims or,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Moviecolor Limited v. Eastman Kodak Company, Technicolor, Inc. And Technicolor Motion Picture CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. City of Burlington, VermontCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- City of Burlington, Vermont v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1965