Legal Opinion
Frank J. Ostrofe v. H.S. Crocker Company, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 15, 1984No. 77-3985PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BROWNING, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff brought this suit under Section 4 of the Clayton Act to recover treble damages for injuries resulting from a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The district court dismissed a part of plaintiffs claim for lack of standing to sue under Section 4, and granted summary judgment as to the remainder. We reversed. Ostrofe I, 670 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir.1982). The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- American Ad Management, Inc. v. General Telephone Company Of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Vinod C. Bhan, C.R.N.A. v. Nme Hospitals, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Dba Manteca HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2010
- Peterson v. BrowningUtah Supreme Court · 1992
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.