Legal Opinion
3 P.M., Inc. v. Basic Four Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided August 2, 1984No. Civ. A. 79-74416PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP PRATT, District Judge.
Plaintiff 3 P.M., Inc. (“3PM”) brought this action against defendants Basic Four Corporation (“B/4”), Sorbus, Inc. (“Sorbus”), and Management Assistance, Inc. (“MAI”), alleging four violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts 1 and bringing pendent state claims of fraud and breach of contract. Now before the Court are defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all counts of plaintiff’s complaint, and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and II of its complaint. For the following reasons, the Court hereby grants…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. Loew's Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Cloverdale Equipment Company v. Simon Aerials, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- A.I. Root Company v. Computer/dynamics, Inc. And Management Assistance, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- Kevin R. Cook and K. Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Hall v. Burger King Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1995
- Schubot v. McDonalds Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.