Legal Opinion
Martin v. Chandler
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 8, 1949PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
This is a motion 'by some, but not all, of the named defendants to dismiss the first cause of action stated in the complaint upon the ground that “the defendant Albert B. Chandler is an indispensable party, has not been served * * * and may not be sued * * * in this District without his consent.”
The complaint, filed on March 8, 1949, is in two counts. The first is brought under 15 U.S.C.A. § 26; the second is founded on 15 U.S.C.A. § 15. Together they seek to enjoin alleged violations of the anti-trust laws and to recover treble damages for the injuries sustained by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. National Lead Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. National Lead Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Kidd v. New Hampshire Traction Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Cole Silver Min. Co. v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1871
3Cited by13 opinions
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1971
- State of Washington v. American Pipe & Construction Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1968
- Champion Spark Plug Company v. KarchmarDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- Tondas v. Amateur Hockey Ass'n of USDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1977
- Chatham Brass Co., Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.