Legal Opinion
O. Hommel Company v. Ferro Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 23, 1981No. 80-2062, 80-2723PublishedCited by 115 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
GARTH, Circuit Judge.
The O. Hommel Company brought suit against the Ferro Corporation, claiming that Ferro had violated § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1976) and § 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the RobinsonPatman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (1976). Between 1973 and 1977, Ferro sold porcelain enamel frit to three customers at a price lower than the price it charged other customers, and below its average total cost. The district court refused to enter a directed verdict for Ferro, and the jury found that Ferro had violated the Robinson-Pat-man Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13, but…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Richerson v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Johnson v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Federal Trade Commission v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Janich Bros., Inc. v. The American Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Delong Corporation v. Raymond International, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by115 opinions
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- A&h Sportswear, Inc Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Ala, Inc. v. Ccair, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- In Re Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.