Niagara of Buffalo, Inc. v. Niagara Manufacturing and Distributing Corporation, Defendant-Respondent

262 F.2d 106, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5870, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,228
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 31, 1958
Docket100, Docket 25214
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 262 F.2d 106 (Niagara of Buffalo, Inc. v. Niagara Manufacturing and Distributing Corporation, Defendant-Respondent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Niagara of Buffalo, Inc. v. Niagara Manufacturing and Distributing Corporation, Defendant-Respondent, 262 F.2d 106, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5870, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,228 (2d Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 to recover treble damages for alleged violations of the anti-trust laws. Defendant moved under Rule 12(b), Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. to dismiss each count of the amended complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion was granted and the complaint dismissed.

In his opinion, reported in 161 F.Supp. 849, at page 850, the District Judge stated:

“ * * * Preparation of a proper pleading for an anti-trust suit requires a statement of matters and their relation to each other considerably more extensive than in a simple pleading in negligence or on contract.
“* * * the complaint herein might possibly be sufficient in the ordinary commercial case, but it does not allege the acts complained of with sufficient specificity to be a proper complaint in this type of case

This view of the requisites of a complaint in anti-trust cases is incorrect. Nagler v. Admiral Corporation, 2 Cir., 248 F.2d 319. The motion should have been denied.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Chicago Title Insurance v. Great Western Financial Corp.
444 P.2d 481 (California Supreme Court, 1968)
Cold Guard Corp. v. Republic Aluminum Co.
38 F.R.D. 190 (S.D. New York, 1965)
Paul M. Harrod Company v. AB Dick Company
204 F. Supp. 580 (N.D. Ohio, 1962)
Ideal Pictures Inc. v. Films Inc.
190 F. Supp. 433 (S.D. New York, 1961)
United States v. Irving Bitz
282 F.2d 465 (Second Circuit, 1960)
David v. Sinclair Refining Co.
25 F.R.D. 190 (S.D. New York, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 F.2d 106, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5870, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-of-buffalo-inc-v-niagara-manufacturing-and-distributing-ca2-1958.