1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 303 F.Supp.
  5. 303 F.Supp. 77 (1969)
 

MARICOPA COUNTY v. AMERICAN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION CO.

Civ. A. No. 69-149 PHX.

303 F.Supp. 77 (1969)

MARICOPA COUNTY, a body politic, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION CO., American Concrete Pipe Co., Kaiser Steel Corporation, Smith-Scott, Inc., United Concrete Pipe Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Martin-Marietta Corporation, United States Industries, Inc., Arizona Concrete Pipe Co., Six Points Lumber & Supply Co., dba O'Malley Gannaway Concrete Pipe Co., all corporations, Defendants.

United States District Court D. Arizona.

August 1, 1969.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff; Albert Firestein, Ronald W. Meyer, Deputy County Attys.

George W. Jansen, Wayne M. Pitluck, James O. Sullivan, Sullivan, Jones & Mitchell, San Diego, Cal., Robert C. Hackett, Shimmel, Hill & Bishop, Phoenix, Ariz., for American Pipe and Construction Co. and American Concrete Pipe Co.

Gordon Johnson, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., for Kaiser Steel Corp.

John J. Hanson, Robert E. Cooper, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for Smith-Scott, Inc. and United Concrete Pipe Corp.

Jesse R. O'Malley, Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Los Angeles, Cal., for United States Steel Corp.

Gordon F. Hampton, Don T. Hibner, Pierce T. Selwood, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles, Cal., for Martin-Marietta Corp.

Oliver F. Green, Jr., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Los Angeles, Cal., for United States Industries, Inc.

R. E. Johnson, Johnson, Bebeau & Timbanard, Phoenix, Ariz., for Arizona Concrete Pipe Co.

Newman R. Porter, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Phoenix, Ariz., for Six Points Lumber & Supply Co.

DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND/OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PENCE, District Judge.

The defendants above named have each and all filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment against the plaintiff, maintaining that its Sherman 1 and 2 antitrust action is barred by the statute of limitations and laches. Some defendants have raised additional grounds, fully discussed hereafter. The chronological sequence of events preceding the filing of plaintiff...

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