Legal Opinion

Klebanow v. New York Produce Exchange

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 18, 1964PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TYLER, District Judge.

Defendants other than Morton Kamerman and Ira Haupt & Company (“Haupt”) assail the legal sufficiency of the complaint seeking treble damages for alleged Sherman Act violations by defendants. The plaintiffs are limited partners of Haupt and, as such, they purport to bring this suit on behalf of the partnership entity. The principal points urged by defendants in support of their motions to dismiss are that the complaint fails to sufficiently spell out the alleged offenses and, more importantly, that plaintiffs have no standing to prosecute this essentially derivative…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
  2. Ruzicka v. RagerNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  3. Lanier v. BowdoinNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  4. Gerli v. Silk Ass'n of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1929
  5. Rossmoore v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Strain v. Seven Hills AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Ira Haupt & Co. v. Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
  3. In re Ira Haupt & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968
  4. In re Ira Haupt & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
  5. Blattberg v. WeissNew York Supreme Court · 1969

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API