RE/MAX INTERN., INC. v. REALTY ONE, INC.

Nos. 96-3362, 96-3469, 96-3470.

173 F.3d 995 (1999)

RE/MAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; A.E.B.T.S., Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Crossroads Properties; T.M.A.T.N.B., Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Affinity, Inc.; D.F.I., Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Results; Joseph P. Grady, Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Xpress; McGrew Realty, Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Key Realty; Property Professionals, Inc., d/b/a Re/Max Property Professionals, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Re/Max Northeast Ohio Limited Partnership; Zames Realty, Inc.; Realty Properties, Inc.; True Independence Partnership; R.E.P., Inc., Intervenors-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. REALTY ONE, INC. (96-3362/3469); Smythe Cramer Company (96-3362/3470), Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided April 6, 1999.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stephen J. Squeri (argued and briefed), Charles M. Kennedy, IV, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio, Barbara B. McDowell (briefed), Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, DC, Edward W. Cochran, Cochran & Cochran, Shaker Heights, Ohio, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Jeffrey Baddeley (briefed), Richard M. Markus (argued and briefed), Joyce M. Papandreas, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Cleveland, Ohio, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Realty One, Inc.

John J. Eklund (argued and briefed), Thomas I. Michaels (briefed), Philip J. Carino (briefed), Maura L. Hughes (briefed), Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, Ohio, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Smythe Cramer Company.

Robert O. Driscoll, Jr. (briefed), State Solicitor, Columbus, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae State of Ohio.

Peter M. Gerhart (briefed), Paul C. Giannelli (briefed), Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae Ohio Manufacturers' Association, Ohio Hospital Association.

Before: RYAN and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; CAMPBELL, District Judge.


RYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an antitrust case involving northeast Ohio real-estate brokers. Plaintiffs accuse the defendants, and one of the defendants accuses the plaintiffs, of engaging in illegal business practices designed to drive the other out of business, in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Following extensive pretrial motion activity, and in the course of four written opinions comprising some 400 pages of discussion,

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