MIAMI PARTS & SPRING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the release of one joint tortfeasor in an antitrust case releases the other joint tortfeasor under federal law.
Plaintiff sued two defendants for antitrust violations. One defendant was dismissed by stipulation. Plaintiff later admitted inability to prove a cons…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Joint Tortfeasor Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This anti-trust action has been before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier under the caption, Miami Parts and Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 364 F. 2d 957 (5 Cir., 1966).
The original action was brought by Miami Parts and Spring, Inc., against Champion Spark Plug Company and Patten Sales Company, as defendant co-conspirators. Thereafter, on stipulation of dismissal Patten was released as a co-joint tort-feasor on October 12, 1964.
After hearing and remand of this case by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on an issue not involved here, pre-trial activities were begun. At the pre-trial on May 29, 1967, attorneys for Miami stated that Miami could not prevail in this action without evidence of the co-conspiracy between Champion and Patten, and this admission in judicio was considered by the trial court. As Patten had previously been dismissed as a joint tort-feasor, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment. The granting of this motion was not error as the release of Patten Sales Company, a joint tort-feasor, was a release of defendant Champion Spark Plug Company, the other joint -tortfeasor. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-In Theatre, 351 F. 2d 925 (9 Cir., 1965); Canillas v. Joseph H. Carter, Inc., 280 F.Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y., 1968); Ayers v. Pastime Amusement Company, 259 F.Supp. 358 (D.C. 1966). The cases on the question establish the rule that federal law governs the effect of a release of joint tortfeasors in anti-trust cases. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-In Theatre, 351 F. 2d 925 (9 Cir., 1965).
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1971)
-
Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp. (formerly Switzer Bros., 429 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1970)
-
Ingram Corp. & Ingram Contractors, Inc. v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc., 698 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc., 351 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Miami Parts & Spring, Inc. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 364 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1966)