Legal Opinion
McElhenney Co. v. Western Auto Supply Company
District Court, W.D. South Carolina
Decided November 18, 1958No. Civ. A. 2135PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMS, District Judge.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The amended complaint seeks treble damages for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 14) as authorized by Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 15).
The Parties
The defendant Western Auto Supply Company is engaged in the business of selling tires, tubes, batteries, auto accessories, sporting goods, home appliances, etc., at retail through some 350…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- American Tobacco Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1968
- O & G Industries, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Bert G. Gianelli Distributing Co. v. Beck & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- The Timken Roller Bearing Company v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.