VULCANIZED RUBBER & PLASTICS CO.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (55 total)

• Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1975)
  …it can hardly expect them to break with historic principles of equity in the enforcement of federally-created equitable rights.” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, supra, at 395. See also Moviecolor, Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F. 2d 80 (CA2), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 821 (1961). The effect to be given the borrowed statute is thus a matter of judicial implication. Simply stated, we must determine whether the national policy considerations favoring the continued availability of the § 1981 cause of action outweigh the…
• Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1985)
  …re analogous to penal claims or to claims arising in tort, contract, or on a statute, was treated as a matter of federal law by the better reasoned authority. See, e. g., Moviecolor Limited v. Eastman Kodak Co., 288 F. 2d 80, 83 (CA2), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 821 (1961); Fulton v. Loew’s, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 676, 678-682 (Kan. 1953); Electric Theater Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 113 F. Supp. 937, 941-942, (WD Mo. 1953); Wolf Sales Co. v. Rudolf Wurlitzer Co., 105 F. Supp. 506, 509 (Colo. 1952). S…
• City OF Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …e basic facts that would reveal the existence of their monopolistic behavior, and (2) that plaintiffs were ignorant of those facts through no fault of their own. See Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Company, 288 F. 2d 80, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 821, 82 S.Ct. 39, 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961). See also Baker v. F. & F. Investment Company, 420 F. 2d 1191 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 821, 91 S.Ct. 42, 27 L.Ed.2d 49 (1970). Because the statute of limitations in private antitrust suits generally cuts…