Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SHERIDAN, District Judge.
This is a motion by plaintiff for the production and inspection of documents under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
For many years, defendant, a manufacturer of machinery used in the production of shoes, made available to shoe manufacturers its more important machinery on a “lease only” basis. In 1947, the Government filed a complaint against defendant under § 4 of the Sherman Act, Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C.A. § 4, to restrain certain alleged monopolistic practices. The defendant was found to have violated the Act.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1953
- United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Hayman v. Pullman Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1948
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
- Republic Gear Company v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Willis v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.