Legal Opinion

Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided October 10, 1947No. 12546Published

1Opinion of the Court

HULEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike from Count V of the second amended and supplemental counterclaim all reference to the judgment, findings and record in the case of United States v. Hartford-Empire Co., et al., 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 *565referred to in this cause as the “Toledo •case”, on the ground that such allegations are “immaterial, impertinent and prejudicial”. Counts I to IV of the counterclaim seek to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered in consequence of anti-trust law violations by plaintiff. Count V of the counterclaim…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API