Legal Opinion
Valley Products Co., Inc. v. Landmark
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided December 22, 1994No. 94-2618-TUBRE, 94-2824-TUBREPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
TURNER, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Valley Products Co., Inc. (“Valley”) filed this antitrust complaint pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-25-101 (1988) (unlawful restraint of trade), and Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-50-109 (1988) (tortious interference with contract), against Hospitality Franchise Systems, Inc. (“HFS”), Guest Supply, Inc. (“Guest”), and Marietta Corporation (“Marietta”). 1…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
- Valley Products Company, Inc. v. Landmark, a Division of Hospitality Franchise Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2001
- Paul E. Volpp Tractor Parts, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1995
- City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.