Legal Opinion
Bamford v. Hobbs
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided February 18, 1983No. Civ. A. H-82-1801PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SINGLETON, Chief Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Charles Edward Bamford and Clifford J. Ott sue defendants Raymond L. Hobbs, Hobbs-Bannerman Corporation, and Hobbs-Hood, Joint Venture for breach of contract, antitrust violations, tortious interference with contract, and malicious damage to property. This action is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2; and sections 2 and 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13, 15. In their original complaint, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as well as damages at law: an application for a…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Stafford v. BriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- David H. Stuart and Richard A. Whitaker v. Richard G. SpademanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Hillblom (In Re Continental Air Lines, Inc.)District Court, S.D. Texas · 1986
- Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics (U.S.A.), Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1987
- Grosser v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- GRM v. Equine Investment & Management GroupDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1984
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.