Home/Fifth Circuit/Bobby L. Forrest and Gerald E. Kiefer, D/B/A Forrest & Kiefer v. The Capital Buildings & Loan Assn.

Bobby L. Forrest and Gerald E. Kiefer, D/B/A Forrest & Kiefer v. The Capital Buildings & Loan Assn.

504 F.2d 891, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5737
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 9, 1974
Docket74-1066
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 504 F.2d 891 (Bobby L. Forrest and Gerald E. Kiefer, D/B/A Forrest & Kiefer v. The Capital Buildings & Loan Assn.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bobby L. Forrest and Gerald E. Kiefer, D/B/A Forrest & Kiefer v. The Capital Buildings & Loan Assn., 504 F.2d 891, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5737 (5th Cir. 1974).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Two lawyers challenge, as antitrust violations under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the practice followed by each defendant savings and loan association in requiring its borrowers to pay the legal fees of attorneys selected by the savings and loan association to examine titles for it, render title opinions to it, and prepare the necessary security agreements, when lending its money.

Under plaintiffs’ theory such requirement constitutes a tying arrangement by which the attorneys’ services are tied to the extension of credit in restraint of free competition and the practice deprives the plaintiffs of law business.

We agree with the defendant associations that their procedures are in accordance with the basic and fundamental right of all persons to use counsel of their own choice and within the requirements of state and federal law. We agree with the district court’s determination that this method of doing business does not constitute a sale of two products or a violation of the tied product prohibition of the antitrust laws.

The facts of the case and the legal basis for summary judgment for the de *892 fendants are fully and sufficiently set forth in Judge James A. Comiskey’s opinion published at 385 F.Supp. 831 (E.D.La.1974).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Benton, Benton & Benton, a Professional Law Corporation v. The Louisiana Public Facilities Authority, a Louisiana Public Trust and Public Corporation
897 F.2d 198 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.
758 F.2d 1486 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Amis v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.
564 F. Supp. 1121 (M.D. Florida, 1983)
Williams v. Kleaveland
534 F. Supp. 912 (W.D. Michigan, 1981)
Greenbelt Homes, Inc. v. Nyman Realty, Inc.
426 A.2d 394 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1981)
Kuhn v. West Alexandria Properties, Inc.
22 Va. Cir. 439 (Alexandria County Circuit Court, 1980)
Anderson Foreign Motors, Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributor, Inc.
475 F. Supp. 973 (D. Massachusetts, 1979)
John D. Sibley v. The Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, and Board of Commissioners of the Mississippi State Bar, Intervenor-Appellant
597 F.2d 459 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
79 F.R.D. 603 (D. New Jersey, 1978)
Foster v. Maryland State Savings & Loan Ass'n
590 F.2d 928 (D.C. Circuit, 1978)
Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
549 F.2d 884 (Third Circuit, 1977)
Mortensen v. First Federal Savings And Loan Association
549 F.2d 884 (First Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
504 F.2d 891, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobby-l-forrest-and-gerald-e-kiefer-dba-forrest-kiefer-v-the-ca5-1974.