Miami Parts & Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Company

402 F.2d 83, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, 1968 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1968
Docket25182
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 402 F.2d 83 (Miami Parts & Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Company) 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
Miami Parts & Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Company, 402 F.2d 83, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, 1968 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,606 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

SHIPCO 2295 INC. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
631 F. Supp. 1123 (E.D. Louisiana, 1986)
Ingram Corporation v. J. Ray Mcdermott & Co., Inc.
698 F.2d 1295 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Ingram Corp. v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
698 F.2d 1295 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Redel's Inc. v. General Electric Company
498 F.2d 95 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Three Rivers Motors Company v. Ford Motor Company
374 F. Supp. 620 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.
401 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Screen Gems-Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark-Fi Records, Inc.
327 F. Supp. 788 (S.D. New York, 1971)
Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corporation
429 F.2d 873 (Seventh Circuit, 1970)
Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp.
429 F.2d 873 (Seventh Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 F.2d 83, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5144, 1968 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-parts-spring-inc-v-champion-spark-plug-company-ca5-1968.