Legal Opinion
Nelligan v. Ford Motor Company
District Court, W.D. South Carolina
Decided April 9, 1958No. Civ. A. 1755PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMS, District Judge.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint seeks treble damages for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2) and Section 3 of the' Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 14). After the filing of a similar motion to the original complaint, plaintiffs moved to amend, and did amend, their complaint to its present form.
The Parties
The plaintiffs, Robert D. Nelligan and Owen B. Nelligan, were partners carrying on a motor car business in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Lorain Journal Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. Columbia Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sunrise Toyota, Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1972
- Technicolor, Inc. v. TraegerHawaii Supreme Court · 1976
- Suburban Mobile Homes, Inc. v. AMFAC Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- Exxon Corporation v. WagnerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- Hamman v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.