The Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation, the Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge:
This private antitrust action presents a number of important questions.
Plaintiff, The Hanover Shoe, Inc., is a manufacturer of shoes and a customer of defendant, United Shoe Machinery Corporation, a manufacturer and distributor of shoe machinery. In this action brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) based on violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) Hanover obtained a trebled damage judgment against United in the amount of $4,239,609, with interest, and an award of $650,000 for counsel fees. United appeals from the judgment…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Howard R. Hughes, and Hughes Tool Company and Raymond M. HollidayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- McSparran v. WeistCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, Columbia Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.