Legal Opinion
E. H. Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided October 8, 1926No. 10178PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUSHMAN, District Judge.
This is a suit for threefold damages under the Sherman Act (section 8829, Comp. Stat.; 26 Stat. at Large, 210). ' The plaintiff has filed a bill of discovery in aid of the action at law. The ground for the discovery is set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the bill, as follows:(5) “That said bureau, ever since its organization, has held secret meetings at Seattle, Wash., for the purpose of fixing and securing uniform prices for leather, shoe findings, shoe machinery, and shoe store supplies, and for the purpose of eliminating, blacklisting, and boycotting any competitor…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Ex Parte FISKSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- United States v. Bitter Root Development Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Dunham Concrete Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- H. Wagner & Adler Co. v. MaliCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- United States v. Dunham Concrete Products, Inc., Louisiana Ready-Mix Co., Inc., Anderson-Dunham, Inc., and Ted F. Dunham, JrCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973