Legal Opinion
Polychrome Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 11, 1966No. 66 Civ. 979PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WYATT, District Judge.
This is a motion by defendant (“3M”) to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) for “the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice”. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The amended complaint contains four separate claims. The first three (the “antitrust claims”) charge violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1 and following) in that 3M has attempted to restrain and monopolize interstate trade or commerce and has conspired with others so to do by various means, including suits or threats of suit for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan. Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- A. Olinick & Sons, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. A. Olinick & Sons v. Honorable Matthew T. Abruzzo, United States District Judge, Eastern District of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Peyser v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Rouse Woodstock, Inc. v. Surety Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986
- Samson Cordage Works v. Wellington Puritan Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1969
- Riso Kagaku Corp. v. A. B. Dick Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- US Industries, Inc. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.