Maricopa County v. American Pipe and Construction Co.

431 F.2d 1145
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 26, 1970·No. 24737·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the order of the district court denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm on the grounds stated in the district court’s opinion, except that we do not pass upon the soundness of the district court’s dictum that a government antitrust proceeding filed more than one year subsequent to the termination of a prior government antitrust proceeding could not toll the running of the statute of limitations on private treble damage actions. Nor do we pass upon the contention, made for the first time in a reply brief in this court, that a partial summary judgment should have been granted because American Pipe and Construction Company was not named as a defendant in two of the five civil actions commenced by the government. We see no reason to depart from the general rule that a district court judgment should not be reversed on grounds not raised below. Our affirmance is without prejudice, however, to the filing in the dis[1146] trict court by appellants of a motion for partial summary judgment raising this new issue.

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

Maricopa County v. American Pipe and Construction Co., 431 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1970).

431 F.2d 1145 (Maricopa County v. American Pipe and Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.
524 F. Supp. 655 (C.D. California, 1981)
Diamond Door Co. v. Lane-Stanton Lumber Co.
505 F.2d 1199 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
In The Matter Of Diamond Door Company
505 F.2d 1199 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Andrews v. Chemical Carriers
457 F.2d 636 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Andrews v. Chemical Carriers, Inc.
457 F.2d 636 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Maricopa County
401 U.S. 937 (Supreme Court, 1971)