Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Alexander Motor Co.

Ninth Circuit

Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Alexander Motor Co.

416 F.2d 15

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 1969

Docket23024

StatusPublished

This text of 416 F.2d 15 (Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Alexander Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Alexander Motor Co., 416 F.2d 15 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc. (“Wen Mar”), plaintiff, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants following defendants’ successful motion for a judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict for Wen Mar upon two of its three asserted claims for relief, a treble damage claim under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and a claim for interference with advantageous business relations. Both claims were based on the same evidence.

Wen Mar urges many assignments of error in the District Court’s granting of judgment. We have examined the record and the briefs of the parties. We have concluded that the District Court did not err in granting judgment to the defendants, because there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy among the defendants, or any of them, to boycott Wen Mar and insufficient evidence of any act by any defendant constituting unjustifiable interference with Wen Mar’s business relationships to warrant submission of either of these issues to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc. (“Wen Mar”), plaintiff, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants following defendants’ successful motion for a judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict for Wen Mar upon two of its three asserted claims for relief, a treble damage claim under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and a claim for interference with advantageous business relations. Both claims were based on the same evidence.

Wen Mar urges many assignments of error in the District Court’s granting of judgment. We have examined the record and the briefs of the parties. We have concluded that the District Court did not err in granting judgment to the defendants, because there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy among the defendants, or any of them, to boycott Wen Mar and insufficient evidence of any act by any defendant constituting unjustifiable interference with Wen Mar’s business relationships to warrant submission of either of these issues to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F.2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wen-mar-enterprises-inc-an-oregon-corporation-v-alexander-motor-co-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack