Logo


Opinions Statutes Gpo Uploaded documents Links Lawyers Questions
Team    

   Search  



TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX F. CORP. v. WINCHESTER DRIVE-IN TH.

Certiorari denied by 382 U.S. 1011
Certiorari denied by 382 U.S. 1101

Jurisdiction: Ninth Circuit
Decision date: Friday, 22 October 1965

empty empty empty empty empty (60) visits
MIAMI PARTS v. CHAMPION SPARK PLUG CO.

Jurisdiction: Fifth Circuit
Decision date: Wednesday, 3 August 1966

empty empty empty empty empty (21) visits

Citation: 402 F.2d 83 empty empty empty empty empty
Neutral citation: 1968 US App (5th) 769 0 votes
Legal status: Precedential 53 visits
Jurisdiction: Fifth Circuit
Decision date: Thursday, 24 October 1968
Tags related to the opinion:  no Tags
Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case
Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Page 1, 402 F.2d 83, 83

3

8

MIAMI PARTS & SPRING, INC., Appellant, v.

CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY, Appellee. No. 25182.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. Oct. 24, 1968.

Page 2, 402 F.2d 83, 84

Philip Bloom, Miami, Fla., Mortimer B. Wolf, New York City, for appellant.

Earl D. Waldin, Jr., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This anti-trust action has been before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier under the caption, Miami Parts and Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Co.,  364 F.2d 957 (5 Cir., 1966).

The original action was brought by Miami Parts and Spring, Inc., against Champion Spark Plug Company and Patten Sales Company, as defendant co-conspirators. Thereafter, on stipulation of dismissal Patten was released as a co-joint tort-feasor on October 12, 1964.

After hearing and remand of this case by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on an issue not involved here, pre-trial activities were begun. At the pre-trial on May 29, 1967, attorneys for Miami stated that Miami could not prevail in this action without evidence of the co-conspiracy between Champion and Patten, and this admission in judicio was considered by the trial court. As Patten had previously been dismissed as a joint tort-feasor, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment. The granting of this motion was not error as the release of Patten Sales Company, a joint tort-feasor, was a release of defendant Champion Spark Plug Company, the other joint tortfeasor. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-in Theatre,  351 F.2d 925 (9 Cir., 1965); Canillas v. Joseph H. Carter, Inc., 280 F.Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y., 1968); Ayers v. Pastime Amusement Company, 259 F.Supp. 358 (D.C. 1966). The cases on the question establish the rule that federal law governs the effect of a release of joint tortfeasors in anti-trust cases. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-in Theatre,  351 F.2d 925 (9 Cir., 1965).

The judgment is affirmed.

delicius digg reddit stumbleupon google yahoo technorati slashdot

feedback

invite a friend

         


Provide a new tag:

Rate opinion importance:
Vote: full empty empty empty empty     
full full empty empty empty
full full full empty empty
full full full full empty
full full full full full

 Opinions last viewed:
   402 F.2d 83

 Personal comment:
 
 



© 2008 PreCYdent, Inc. - About PreCYdent - Advertise with us - F.A.Q. - How to cite us

All cases and statutes published on this site are in the Public Domain