Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The trial judge’s opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law are reported in D.C., 114 F.Supp. 307. As the facts are there fully set forth, we do not repeat them in detail.
1. Defendant argues that it appears unmistakably that defendant did not violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Were that true, we would now know that plaintiff could have no final relief, and that therefore the granting of the preliminary injunction was an obvious error; indeed, we might direct dismissal of the complaint. But we think that the present record sufficiently discloses that the court,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- United States v. Oregon State Medical SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Lorain Journal Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by497 opinions
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Blackwelder Furniture Company of Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977
- Francisco Sanchez v. Esso Standard Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
492 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.