Legal Opinion
Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided May 6, 1971No. 333-58-DWWPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ONE ISSUE
DAVID W. WILLIAMS, District Judge.
The suit before this Court is an antitrust action which has had a long history. In the original complaint, CaseSwayne, a processor of single strength and blended orange juices, sought treble damages from Sunkist under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) for alleged monopoly and an attempt to monopolize the fruit and product fruit markets in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2). Prior to trial, on the basis of facts stipulated by the parties, the trial court held that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn., Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Operative Marketing Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Case-Swayne Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Ass'n v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Telex Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1973
- United States v. National Broiler Marketing AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Denes v. Countrymark, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.