1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 165 F.Supp.
  5. 165 F.Supp. 933 (1958)
 

LEH v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

No. 20531.

165 F.Supp. 933 (1958)

Marc D. LEH, individually, and The Progress Company, a copartnership composed of Marc D. Leh and David Brown, copartners, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a corporation, Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation, The Texas Company, a corporation, Richfield Oil Corporation, a corporation, Union Oil Company of California, a corporation, Tidewater Oil Company, a corporation, Olympic Refining Company, a corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

September 15, 1958.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard G. Harris, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

P. E. Bermingham, Sims Hamilton and Howard Painter, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant General Petroleum Corp.

Marshall P. Madison, Francis R. Kirkham, William E. Mussman and Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., Lawler, Felix & Hall and John M. Hall, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Standard Oil Co. of California.

George W. Jansen, New York City, J. A. Tucker, James O. Sullivan, and Beardsley, Hufstedler & Kemble, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant The Texas Co.

Wm. J. De Martini and William H. Powell, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Richfield Oil Co.

L. A. Gibbons, Douglas C. Gregg and A. Andrew Hauk, Los Angeles, Cal., Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and Moses Lasky, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Union Oil Co. of California.

W. F. Kiessig, Edmund D. Buckley, San Francisco, Cal., Overton, Lyman & Prince and Wayne H. Knight, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Tidewater Oil Co.

Joseph L. Alioto, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Olympic Refining Co.

MATHES, District Judge.

This is a private antitrust action, brought pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731 (1914) [15 U.S.C.A. § 15], wherein plaintiffs seek treble damages for injuries allegedly sustained by reason of claimed violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209 (1890), as amended [15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and 2]. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under § 4 of the Clayton Act and 28 U.S.C. &...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases