Legal Opinion
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 30, 1962No. 101PublishedCited by 1,376 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*464Mr. Justice. Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This private antitrust action for treble damages and other relief under § § 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act1 and § 4 of the Clayton Act2 was brought by the petitioner against a number of defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After hearings on a motion to dismiss the action on grounds of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the Pennsylvania District Court agreed that venue was improperly laid as to two of the corporate defendants3 because they were neither…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. ThomsenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Marcus Heiman, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. GoldeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- GOLDLAWR, INCORPORATED v. ShubertDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,376 opinions
- Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Trujillo v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Margaret E. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
1,371 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.