Legal Opinion

Baughman v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 18, 1978No. Nos. 77-1735, 77-1736PublishedCited by 99 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Gordon Baughman (“plaintiff”) appeals from an order of the district court assessing attorneys’ fees and costs against defendant Wilson Freight Forwarding Company, now known as Wilson Freight Lines, Inc. (“Wilson”). Wilson cross-appeals from the same order, which the district court entered after a jury verdict finding that Wilson had violated the antitrust laws. The district court assessed the attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny person who shall be injured in his…

2Cases cited7 opinions

Hughes v. RepkoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. Of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
Arthur H. Pitchford and Pitchford Scientific Instruments Corporation v. Pepi, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
Merola v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
Gordon Baughman, in No. 75--1536 v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. Appeal of Wilson Freight Forwarding Company A/K/A Wilson Freight Company, in No. 75--1537Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by99 opinions

Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany & Albany County Board of ElectionsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. KellstromCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
Rode v. DellarcipreteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
In Re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc. Kirkpatrick & LockhartCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
In re Fine Paper Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984

94 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.