Legal Opinion
Muskin Shoe Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided September 22, 1958No. Civ. 9717PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMSEN, Chief Judge.
In this action under sec. 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, plaintiff seeks to recover damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of defendant’s violation of sec. 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2. The court found such violation in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., D.C.D.Mass., 110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed per curiam 347 U.S. 521, 74 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. 910, hereinafter called the government’s suit. Plaintiff contends that as a result of defendant’s monopolization of the shoe machinery market plaintiff was unable to purchase certain machines or…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1953
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- The Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation, the Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Fleischer v. A.A.P., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Southern Maryland Oil Company v. Texas CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1962
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Ross J. Baldwin and Dorothy E. Baldwin v. Loew's Incorporated, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.