In this case, plaintiff American Standard, Inc. sued defendant Bendix Corporation alleging that Bendix violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the manufacture and sale of APX-72 electronic navigational transponders to the U.S. government, along with related claims of fraud and breach of contract. Bendix moved for summary judgment on the antitrust count under Rule 56, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding a dangerous probability of successful monopolization. The court denied the motion, holding that summary judgment is a harsh remedy to be applied sparingly in antitrust cases and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, raised triable issues of fact on monopoly power and the attempt claim. The decision relied on established Eighth Circuit precedents requiring denial of summary judgment where inferences favorable to the non-moving party could support liability.
The case is a complex civil action between American Standard Inc. and Bendix Corporation involving antitrust claims, fraud, rescission and restitution, breach of a 1967 Leader/Follower contract for manufacturing APX-72 military radio-transponders, and counterclaims including False Claims Act violations. After five years of litigation in the Western District of Missouri, the plaintiff moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case for trial to the Eastern District of Virginia or the District of Maryland, primarily citing the convenience of witnesses located near those districts. The court denied the motion, applying the statutory factors of convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice, and concluding that transfer was not warranted given the case's history and procedural posture in Missouri.
This case involved competing claims to a $6,141.94 fund deposited in court from a construction subcontract payment. The United States asserted priority based on recorded federal tax liens for Hall Plastering's unpaid FICA and FUTA taxes assessed in 1969-1970, while Mid-Continent National Bank claimed the fund as assignee of Hall's contract rights under a 1968 loan agreement, and Hall's attorney sought an attorney's lien. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and denied the others, holding that the contract right constituted existing property to which the tax liens attached, the bank's unperfected assignment did not take priority under applicable law, and the attorney's lien did not attach to the interpleader fund created by the surety's payment. The decision rested on federal tax lien statutes, UCC perfection requirements, and Missouri attorney lien provisions.
This case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act involved a plaintiff who alleged he was discharged from his engineering position because of his age and sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. A jury awarded the plaintiff $14,769.74 in lost wages but found for the defendant on liquidated damages; the court then denied the defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, ordered retroactive reinstatement only through August 1, 1975, and awarded $9,603 in attorneys' fees plus interest. The rulings rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Lorillard v. Pons confirming a statutory right to jury trial on lost wages claims, along with the conclusion that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict on that issue while equitable claims were resolved separately by the court.
This case involved copyright owners suing a cocktail lounge and restaurant operator for unauthorized public performances of six copyrighted musical compositions on two nights in 1975. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, awarding an injunction against further infringements, $1,500 in statutory damages, and costs, while directing the filing of affidavits for attorneys' fees. The decision was based on undisputed evidence from affidavits confirming the performances occurred, the defendant's lack of contrary evidence or records, and legal principles establishing the defendant's liability as a vicarious infringer due to its control over the premises and financial interest, even without actual knowledge of the specific infringements.
Propane Industrial, Inc. sued General Motors Corporation to recover the unpaid balance of $18,276.62 for propane delivered in late 1973 and early 1974 at a claimed reasonable price of $0.4048 per gallon. GM had paid only $0.17 per gallon under a March 1973 purchase order for up to 500,000 gallons of standby propane and defended on the ground that the order formed an exclusive requirements contract fixing that price. Based on stipulated facts, prior course of dealing showing GM purchased propane from multiple suppliers, and Kansas UCC provisions on contract formation and interpretation, the court found the purchase order was not an exclusive requirements contract and did not fix the price for the disputed deliveries. The court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff on its claim for the reasonable price, rejecting GM's set-off and counterclaim.
