Legal Opinion
Kramer v. Pollock-Krasner Foundation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 12, 1995No. 94 Civ. 7068 (HB)PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
BAER, District Judge:
This tempest in the art world involves defendants’ alleged monopolization of the market in Jackson Pollock paintings. Defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss plaintiffs antitrust and related claims. Defendants also moved for an order imposing sanctions on plaintiffs counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted, and their motions for sanctions are denied.
Factual Background
Plaintiff David Kramer, a fine art and…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Spagnola v. Chubb Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.