Legal Opinion
Pitchford Scientific Instruments Corp. v. Pepi, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 23, 1977No. Civ. A. 70-1461PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DUMBAULD, District Judge.
The instant proceeding is for the purpose of fixing the counsel fees which plaintiff is entitled to recover in a successful 1 private antitrust case. 2 15 U.S.C. § 15 provides that:
Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- United States v. Von's Grocery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Prandini v. National Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State of Illinois v. Sangamo Construction Co. And J. L. Simmons Company, Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- Spray-Rite Service Corporation, an Iowa Corporation v. Monsanto Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- International Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. Western Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Wehr v. Burroughs Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.