Legal Opinion
Berning v. Gooding
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided January 7, 1986No. Civ. 84-895-PAPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PANNER, Chief Judge.
In this action plaintiff Louis Berning alleges that he was damaged by defendants’ violations of the antitrust laws and by defendants’ tortious interference with prospective advantage. Plaintiff was a hop grower. All but one of the defendants are hop growers who were or are members of the Hop Administrative Committee (HAC). Defendant Robert Eaton, while not a grower, was HAC’s manager during the relevant time, and still is.
Defendants move to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff fails to state a claim under either the antitrust laws or for tortious interference. I grant the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. Borden Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. GianniniCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2003
- Berning v. GoodingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Berning v. GoodingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- McCurty v. MadsenDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.