Legal Opinion
A.O. Smith Corp. v. Lewis, Overbeck & Furman
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided November 9, 1992No. 91-3763PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
This is the third time that this antitrust claim has come before this Court in one form or another.1 In its latest incarnation the losing party is suing its lawyers for agreeing to an allegedly faulty jury instruction in the original trial in 1985. In that case, Parts and Electric Motors, Inc. (“P & E”) brought a tying claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 14) against Sterling Electric, Inc. (“Sterling”) after Sterling canceled P & E’s contract to distribute Sterling brand electric motors and parts. In…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- International Salt Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Parts and Electric Motors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Sterling Electric, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Billy Joe Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- A.O. Smith Corporation v. Lewis, Overbeck & FurmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Billy Joe Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Webster Bank, N.A. v. Pierce & Associates, P.C.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019