Legal Opinion
Mozart Co. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided September 18, 1984No. C-81-0531-MHPPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PATEL, District Judge.
This is an antitrust action, presently before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff The Mozart Company, successor in interest to Eurasian Automotive Products, Inc., a wholesale automotive parts distributor, brought suit against defendant Mercedes-Benz of North America (“MBNA”) alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 14. Mozart contends that provisions of the Dealer Agreement between MBNA and each Mercedes-Benz franchised dealer constitute a per se tying violation of 15…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- International Salt Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- The Mozart Company, a Corporation v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Parts and Electric Motors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Sterling Electric, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Fox Motors, Inc., and Kae Myers Motors, Inc. v. Mazda Distributors (Gulf), Inc., and Mazda Motors of America (Central), Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal And Professional Publications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Professional Publications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995