Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Appellant, v. Alexander Motor Co. et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 416 F.2d 15
September 10, 1969
Robert C. Shapiro (argued), of Burnstein & Shapiro, Sandra J. Shapiro, Robert C. Burnstein, Oakland, Cal., Myatt, Bolliger & Lewis, Louis E. Myatt, Beaverton, Or., for appellant.
George M. Joseph (argued), Jack H. Dunn and Paul W. Jones, of Morrison & Bailey, Seites & Whipple, King, Miller, Anderson, Nashe & Yerke, Portland, Or., for appellees.
Before DUNIWAY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and PENCE, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Wen Mar Enterprises, Inc. ("Wen Mar"), plaintiff, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants following defendants' successful motion for a judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict for Wen Mar upon two of its three asserted claims for relief, a treble damage claim under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and a claim for interference with advantageous business relations. Both claims were based on the same evidence.
Wen Mar urges many assignments of error in the District Court's granting of judgment. We have examined the record and the briefs of the parties. We have concluded that the District Court did not err in granting judgment to the defendants, because there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy among the defendants, or any of them, to boycott Wen Mar and insufficient evidence of any act by any defendant constituting unjustifiable interference with Wen Mar's business relationships to warrant submission of either of these issues to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.