Legal Opinion
Minnesota v. Pickands Mather & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided December 31, 1980No. 80-1666PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LAY, Chief Judge.
Pickands Mather & Co. sought leave in the district court to file a third-party complaint against former do-defendants based on a claim for contribution under Professional Beauty Supply, Inc. v. National Beauty Supply, Inc., 594 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1979) (under certain circumstances an antitrust defendant may be permitted to obtain contribution from its co-conspirators). The United States Magistrate denied Pickands Mather’s motion on the grounds that the litigation would be complicated and delayed by the reintroduction of defendants who had previously settled their differences…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Norman McMunn v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eichleay Corporation, Third-Party-Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Larry Ray Freeman and Brenda Freeman v. Kohl & Vick MacHine Works, Inc., Third-Party v. Keebler Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Ronald Brakke A/K/A Ron Brakke, and Chester BrakkeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
- Jose Demelo and Marie Demelo v. Woolsey Marine Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- State Of Minnesota v. Pickands Mather & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.