Legal Opinion
Pollock & Riley, Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Company
District Court, W.D. Texas
Decided August 16, 1973No. Civ. A. SA-72-CA-247PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
THE MOTION
WOOD, District Judge.
The case before the Court is a Civil antitrust action jurisdictionally grounded upon 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, 2, 14, 15 and 22. Plaintiff urges in his motion that defendant be refrained from informing the Jury of the penalty provisions of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15. 1 Plaintiff argues that the Jury might adjust accordingly its findings as to damages and that his case would thereby be prejudiced. Defendant sees no reason to so blindfold the Jury of the provisions of the Statutes involved.
There appears to be no definitive statement on this point by the Fifth Circuit. None has…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Packard Motor Car Company v. The Webster Motor Car Company, the Webster Motor Car Company v. Packard Motor Car CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- L. G. Semke, D/B/A Semke Auto Mart v. Enid Automobile Dealers AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1972
- Webster Motor Car Co. v. Packard Motor Car Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1955
- Bordonaro Bros. Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Volasco Products Company v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Wheat Ridge v. CervenySupreme Court of Colorado · 1996