Legal Opinion

George Hantscho Co. v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided July 19, 1963PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant for a separate trial, Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b), of its affirmative defense that the agreement upon which plaintiff bases its cause of action, at least as interpreted by plaintiff, is illegal under the antitrust laws, and for a stay of all other proceedings pending such trial.1 Questions of *333discovery and inspection, Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, are also presented for resolution.

Under date of April 12, 1960, the parties entered into a contract denominated “License Agreement.” The agreement recited that defendant was engaged in the design, manufacture, and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. White Motor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  4. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  5. Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kozlowski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1976
  2. Hubbard v. Rubbermaid, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1978
  3. Pennwalt Corp. v. Plough, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1979
  4. Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi AndrewDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
  5. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1979

3 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