Legal Opinion
Purex Corp., Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided July 23, 1976No. Civ. 67-1546-WPGPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
GRAY, District Judge.
The present action is for treble damages of more than five hundred million dollars, sought pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) and arising out of the acquisition (in August 1957) and retention (until January 1969) by defendant Procter & Gamble (Procter) of the Clorox Chemical Company, the alleged effect of which has been “substantially to lessen competition . [and] to tend to create a monopoly,” in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18). The complaint also charges Procter and defendant Clorox Company…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gladys G. Holloway v. Bristol-Myers CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- Dahl, Inc. v. Roy Cooper Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
- Nbo Industries Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, in Nos. 74-2127, 75-1152 Appeal of Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., in No. 74-2128Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lloyd L. Hayes, Hayes, Inc. v. T. G. Solomon, Gulf States Theatres, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Purex Corporation v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and the Clorox CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Purex Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. And Clorox Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Purex Corporation v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and the Clorox CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979