Legal Opinion

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 3, 1962No. Civ. 5395PublishedCited by 28 opinions

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

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1953
  3. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  4. Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  5. Hayman v. Pullman Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1948

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
  4. Republic Gear Company v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  5. Willis v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API