Legal Opinion
Nike, Inc. v. Rubber Manufacturers Ass'n
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 27, 1981No. 80 Civ. 4990PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BONSAL, District Judge.
Nike, Inc. (“Nike”), an Oregon corporation, instituted this action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8, and tortious conduct constituting unfair competition. On August 14,1980, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon transferred the action to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Nike is a manufacturer, importer, and distributor of athletic shoes. Approximately 20 percent of the shoes…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United Mine Workers v. PenningtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Far East Conference v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget TransatlanticSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1989
- Shaw v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Stride Rite Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985
- Meditech International Co. v. Minigrip, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986