Legal Opinion
STATE OF NY BY ABRAMS v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided November 19, 1987No. 86 CV 2345, 86 CV 2400, 86 CV 2516 and 86 CV 3227PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PLATT, District Judge.
Defendants The Stroh Brewery Company (“Stroh”) and G. Heileman Brewing Company, Inc. (“Heileman”) move this Court for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the ground that there is no issue of material fact as to the question that they lack market power in a relevant market and hence they may not be held to have violated any antitrust law.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This motion concerns four actions commenced against four brewers, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“A-B”), Miller Brewing Company (“Miller”), Stroh, and Heileman; four named…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hayden Publishing Co., Inc. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp. And United Technical Publications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Capital Imaging Associates, P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Medical Associates, Inc., Mohawk Valley Physicians Plan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993