Legal Opinion
Arthur v. Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided February 10, 1938No. 6040PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHESNUT, District Judge.
The declaration in this case appears to be based on Section 15, Title 15 of the United States Code, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, which authorizes a civil suit by a person “injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws”. It has been demurred to.
The only facts (apart from conclusions of law) alleged are that the plaintiff (a Maryland citizen) for three years prior to January 1, 1934, was engaged in Baltimore City in the business of selling and distributing various commodities and in connection therewith was the sole distributor in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Nelson Radio & Supply Co., Inc. v. Motorola, IncCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- United States v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
- Schwing Motor Company v. Hudson Sales CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1956
- Package Closure Corporation v. Sealright Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Bliss v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.Oregon Supreme Court · 1958
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.