ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., Commercial Div., s. 82-2177
| Decision Date | 29 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 82-2177,s. 82-2177 |
| Parties | ITCO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, Appellee. and State of North Carolina, Amicus Curiae. ITCO CORPORATION, Appellee, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, Appellant. (L), 82-2178. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., District Judge.
Charles Gordon Brown, Chapel Hills, N.C. (Jordan, Brown, Price & Wall, Chapel Hill, N.C., John R. Jordan, Jr., Jordan, Brown, Price & Wall, Samuel W. Johnson, Meadows, Johnson & Spinks, Rocky Mount, N.C., John F. Dienelt, Brownstein, Zeidman & Schomer, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellants.
J. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Natalma M. McKnew, Greenville, S.C. (Fletcher C. Mann, Leatherwood, Walker, Tood & Mann, Greenville, S.C., Jerry S. Alvis, Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellee.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. of N.C., H.A. Cole, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., John R. Corne, Associate Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C., on brief, as amicus curiae.
Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
The judgment of the district court is reversed, and this case is remanded for reasons stated in the opinion of the original panel. ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., Commercial Division, 722 F.2d 42 (4th Cir.1983). Judge Russell dissents for the reasons stated in his dissent to the panel opinion. 722 F.2d at 53-55.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Terry
...the state in which they sit. ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., Commercial Div., 722 F.2d 42, 49 n.11 (4th Cir. 1983), on reh'g, 742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1984); Bethel v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:09cv613, 2010 WL 3242651, at *5 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2010). Thus, the Court would normally appl......
-
Morley v. Cohen
...(citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)), aff'd on rehearing, 742 F.2d 170 (1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S ___, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985). See also Colgate Palmolive Company v. S/S Dart Canada, 724 F.2d 313, 316 (......
-
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.
...incidental, but not excessive, effect upon interstate commerce, we perceive no cause for constitutional concern."), on reh'g , 742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1984). Thankfully for CFPs, EPPs fare better; several of their cases actually decline to follow In Porters and its progeny. In re Lidoderm An......
-
In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.
...of a horizontal conspiracy to fix prices—are also actions banned by the North Carolina act. We agree.”), aff'd on rehearing,742 F.2d 170 (4th Cir.1984); see also Allen, supra, §§ 16.10, 26.01. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals explained: Highly persuasive to us is the fact t......