PHI DELTA THETA FRATERNITY v. J. A. BUCHROEDER & COMPANY

Nos. 683, 684, 729, 736, 737, 751-755, 792.

251 F.Supp. 968 (1966)

PHI DELTA THETA FRATERNITY et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. A. BUCHROEDER & COMPANY, Defendant. SIGMA CHI CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. A. BUCHROEDER & COMPANY, Defendant. J. A. BUCHROEDER & COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. COLUMBUS STATIONERY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. James A. MURRAY and Edith B. Murray, partners, d/b/a Nassau China Company, Plaintiffs, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. Edward F. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. H. F. MICHAELIS, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. William G. UNDERWOOD, d/b/a Underwood's College Jewelers, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. James L. LESTER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. H. E. PENNINGTON, d/b/a Western Collegiate Supply Company, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants. H. O. FARRIS, d/b/a Farris Jewelers, Plaintiff, v. L. G. BALFOUR COMPANY et al., Defendants.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, Central Division.

March 10, 1966.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nos. 683 and 684:

George A. Spencer, Columbia, Mo., Burns, Doane, Benedict & Irons, Meredith M. Daubin, Washington, D. C., Kingsland, Rogers, Ezell & Robbins, St. Louis, Mo., Joseph B. Kennedy, Jr., Washington, D. C., Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Nick C. Spanos, Los Angeles, Cal., Popham, Thompson, Popham, Trusty & Conway, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

Nos. 729, 736, 737, 751-755, 792:

Nick C. Spanos, Los Angeles, Cal., Popham, Thompson, Popham, Trusty & Conway, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Brewer, Myers & Branton, Kansas City, Mo., Joseph B. Kennedy, Jr., Washington, D. C., Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.


JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.

Introductory

In accordance with Rules 16, 42(b) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and after extensive pretrial proceedings the parties agreed for the purpose of obtaining a definitive ruling on certain questions of law presented by certain motions for summary judgment and to dismiss filed before the recent reassignment of these cases that such questions be presented under a factual stipulation entered solely...

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