Legal Opinion

Paul M. Harrod Company v. AB Dick Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided March 27, 1961No. Civ. A. 36519PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.

This is an action for treble damages for violation of the Sherman Act, under 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, alleging that plaintiff has been injured by reason of defendant’s violation of Sections 1 and 2 thereof (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2). Plaintiff charges that it has been injured not only by violations of the Act itself but also by reason of defendant’s violation of certain provisions of a consent decree entered in this Court in 1948 terminating an antitrust suit instituted by the Government (United States v. A. B. Dick Company et al., Civil No. 24188).

Plaintiff alleges that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Control Data Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1969
  2. Data Processing Financial & General Corporation v. International Business MacHines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  3. Rafferty v. Nynex Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1990
  4. Burkhead v. Phillips Petroleum CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1970
  5. State v. New York Movers Tariff Bureau, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1965

4 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