MEMOREX CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; MEMOREX CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 judgment should be affirmed on the authority of a prior case presenting substantially the same issues and evidence.
Plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict granted by the trial judge after an 80-day trial in an anti-trust case. The trial judge had previously granted …
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this anti-trust case the trial judge, after a full trial lasting 80 days, granted a motion for a directed verdict. ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal., 1978, 458 F.Supp. 423. It had previously granted a motion for a directed verdict on one issue. ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal., 1978, 448 F.Supp. 228. Plaintiffs appeal.
The case is one of several similar cases. One of these is California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 9 Cir., 1979, 613 F. 2d 727. There we affirmed a judgment based upon the granting of a motion for a directed verdict in a case that presented substantially the same issues and much of the same evidence. We are unable to distinguish Memorex’s case from the California Computer Products case, and we conclude that, on the authority of that case the judgment should be affirmed. See also The Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 10 Cir., 1975, 510 F. 2d 894, reversing N.D. Okl., 1973, 367 F.Supp. 258; In re IBM EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, Transamerica Computer Co., Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal, 1979, 481 F.Supp. 965.
Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to decide whether it was error for the court to enter an order striking plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial in the event of a new trial. See, however, In re Financial Securities Litigation, Fabrikant v. Bache and Co., 9 Cir., 1979, 609 F. 2d 411.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
MCI Commc'ns Corp. & MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)
-
William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
Spray-Rite Serv. Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 684 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cal. Computer Prods., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1979)
- The Telex Corp. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975)
- In re U. S. Fin. Sec. Litig. Michael Fabrikant & Milton Binswanger v. Bache & Co., 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1979)