Legal Opinion
Christiansen v. Mechanical Contractors Bid Depository
District Court, D. Utah
Decided June 3, 1964No. C 44-63PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
The plaintiff, a mechanical specialty contractor, 1 has sued the defendant, The Utah Mechanical Contractors Bid Depository, 2 for damages and injunctive relief in reliance upon the Sherman AntiTrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and § 15. The members of the Depository comprise a majority of the mechanical contractors in the State of Utah, and receive most of the important mechanical contracts bid within the State. The controversy mainly involves the validity of rules under which general contractors obtain sub-bids through the Depository.
Detailed Findings of Fact and…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- American Tobacco Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- International Salt Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F. P. Lathrop Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
- Plumbers & Fitters, Local 761 v. Matt J. Zaich Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- Mechanical Contractors Bid Depository, a Utah Corporation v. Harold Christiansen, Dba Palmer-Christiansen CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1965
- People v. Inland Bid DepositoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Tekton, Inc. v. Builders Bid Service of Utah, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.