UNITED STATES v. COOPER CORPORATION


31 F.Supp. 848 (1940)

UNITED STATES v. COOPER CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

February 16, 1940.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Allen Dobey, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Richard Decker and Joseph McDowell, Sp. Attys., both of Washington, D. C., Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Myles J. Lane, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Osborne Mitchell, of Youngstown, Ohio, and Henry Goldstein, of New York City, for defendants Cooper Corporation and Falls Rubber Co.

Charles Wesley Dunn, of New York City, for defendant B. F. Goodrich Co.

Pickrel, Schaeffer, Harshman, Young & Ebeling, of Dayton, Ohio, and Maurice P. Davidson, of New York City, for defendant Dayton Rubber Mfg. Corporation.

Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell, Bass & Letchworth, and Lyman M. Bass, all of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co.

Luther Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Davidson, Moses & Sicher, of New York City, for defendant Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Dwight, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, of New York City, for defendant Fisk Rubber Corporation.

Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City, for defendant General Tire & Rubber Co.

Frederick R. Wahl, of Akron, Ohio, and Wright, Gordon, Zachry & Parlin, of New York City, for defendants Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. and Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.

Spence, Windels, Walser, Hotchkiss & Angell, of New York City, for defendant Lee Tire & Rubber Co. of N. Y., Inc.

Slabaugh, Seiberling, Huber & Guinther, of Akron, Ohio, and Milton Dammann, of New York City, for defendants Mohawk Rubber Co. of N. Y., Inc., and Seiberling Rubber Co.

Ingram & Schenck, of New York City, for defendant Norwalk Tire & Rubber Co.

Jeffery, Escher & Murray, of New York City, for defendant Pennsylvania Rubber Co.

Arthur, Dry & Dole, of New York City, for defendants United States Rubber Products, Inc., and U. S. Dealers Corporation.

Luther Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel for all defendants' attorneys.


CONGER, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The complaint sets forth an alleged claim under Section 7 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 210, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 note, asking for treble damages allegedly suffered by the United States in purchasing tires from the defendants at uniform prices.

Section 7 of the Sherman Act reads as follows: "Any person...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases