Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America

Eighth Circuit

Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America

935 F.2d 990, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1991

Docket90-2727

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 935 F.2d 990 (Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America, 935 F.2d 990, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324 (8th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Eureka Urethane, Inc. appeals from summary judgment entered by the district court 1 rejecting its seven claims based on sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2 (West Supp.1991), because PBA, Inc., and the Professional Bowlers Association of America refused to approve Eureka’s “Bud Ball” for use in televised bowling tournaments. 746 F.Supp. 915. In addition, the court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a pendent state law claim based on tortious interference with business relationships. The case has been exhaustively briefed by the parties and oral arguments heard. We are not persuaded that the district court made any error of law in its thorough and carefully researched opinion. We affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

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

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Eureka Urethane, Inc. appeals from summary judgment entered by the district court 1 rejecting its seven claims based on sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2 (West Supp.1991), because PBA, Inc., and the Professional Bowlers Association of America refused to approve Eureka’s “Bud Ball” for use in televised bowling tournaments. 746 F.Supp. 915. In addition, the court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a pendent state law claim based on tortious interference with business relationships. The case has been exhaustively briefed by the parties and oral arguments heard. We are not persuaded that the district court made any error of law in its thorough and carefully researched opinion. We affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

935 F.2d 990, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eureka-urethane-inc-v-pba-inc-and-the-professional-bowlers-ca8-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack