Legal Opinion
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 12, 1960No. Civ. A. 5395PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
This is an action based on the provisions of Section 4 of the Clayton Act 1 to recover treble damages for alleged injury resulting from claimed violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2, by defendant. Following pre-trial conferences Judge Murphy, prior to his illness, ordered, and counsel for the respective parties agreed to, trial of a sepa rate issue which, in the words of the order, “may be dispositive of the case.” This procedure was based on Fed.R.Civ. P. 42(b), 28 U.S.C.A. The order reads in part as follows:
“Ordered that there be tried as a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. International Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- The Flintkote Company, a Corporation v. Elmer Lysfjord and Walter R. Waldron, Doing Business as Aabeta Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- The Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation, the Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.