381 F.2d 723 (6th Cir. 1967), 17113, Bratcher v. Akron Area Bd. of Realtors
|Citation:||381 F.2d 723|
|Party Name:||Mercer BRATCHER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The AKRON AREA BOARD OF REALTORS et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 11, 1967|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Jack Greenberg, New York City, James M. Nabrit, III, Leroy D. Clark, Sheila Rush, New York City, Jack G. Day, Cleveland, Ohio, Norman Purnell, Akron, Ohio, Jay Topkis, New York City, on brief, for appellants.
Sidney D. L. Jackson, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, Alexander H. Hadden, George Downing, John H. Burlingame, Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, Ivan L. Smith, Akron, Ohio, on brief, for appellees, except Frist Nat. Bank of Akron and Herberich-Hall-Harter, Inc.
Frank H. Harvey, Jr., Akron, Ohio, Brouse, McDowell, May, Bierce & Wortman, C. Blake McDowell, Jr., Karl S. Hay, Akron, Ohio, on brief, for appellees First Nat. Bank of Akron and Herberich-Hall-Harter, Inc.
Stephen G. Breyer, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Donald F. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., on brief, for United States as amicus curiae.
Before PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is a case of first impression, whereby appellants undertake to apply the antitrust laws to an alleged conspiracy by a board of realtors and others, which conspiracy allegedly prevents Negroes from owning or renting property in white neighborhoods. The district judge granted appellees' motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice has intervened in this court as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants, urging that the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under the antitrust laws.
Appellants brought this action, seeking to enjoin appellees from violating the Federal (Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1; Clayton Act § 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26) and State (Valentine Act, 13 O.R.C., §§ 1331.01 to 1331.04) antitrust laws, alleging that the action of appellees prevented appellants from owning or renting property in white neighborhoods in Akron, Ohio, thereby violating the aforesaid statutes.
The three plaintiff classes alleged are: 1) Negro persons (in Akron and from out of State) who have sought to purchase or rent real property in the Akron area; 2) white persons who have sought to sell or lease property in the Akron area to Negroes; and 3)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP