Legal Opinion
Dayco Corporation v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided November 21, 1974No. C 74-395PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BATTISTI, Chief Judge.
This lawsuit is filed under §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, alleging that Fire stone violated the antitrust laws by attempting to monopolize the replacement tire industry. In its complaint, plaintiff lists a number of actions by Firestone which allegedly demonstrate this atteiript, culminating, insofar as Dayco is concerned, with the purchase of Dayco’s tire division by Firestone in 1961.
Defendant has moved this Court to dismiss this complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Moviecolor Limited v. Eastman Kodak Company, Technicolor, Inc. And Technicolor Motion Picture CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- David Weinberger, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Retail Credit CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
- NW Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- King & King Enterprises, D/B/A King Gas & Oil and Carl R. King, D/B/A King Gas & Oil v. Champlin Petroleum CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
- Peck v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc. v. Reebok International, Ltd.District Court, C.D. California · 1995
- King & King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co.District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1978
- Argus Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.