CALNETICS CORP. ET AL.

v.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.; AND VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. V. CALNETICS CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1979)
  …en was met, we must draw all reasonable inferences of fact in favor of the plaintiffs. Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F. 2d 624, 631 (9th Cir. 1978); Calnetics [*439] Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F. 2d 674, 683 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976); see also Stansifer v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 487 F. 2d 59, 63 (9th Cir. 1973). Among recognized corollary rules is that if the nonmoving party has raised a genuine issue of material fact, and the evidentiary ma…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1980)
  …VII discrimination suits where, as in antitrust actions, motive and intent are crucial elements and the proof is in the hands of the alleged wrongdoers. See Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F. 2d 674, 683 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976). DISCUSSION 1. The Statute of Limitations The district court ruled that, because Reed did not file a charge of discrimination within the appropriate time period, her claim is time-barred. In so concluding, the…
• Bosse v. Crowell Collier AND MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …graph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 518 F. 2d 913 (9th Cir. 1975) that divestiture is not an available remedy in private actions. See also Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F. 2d 674, 692 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976).7 Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish ITT on the ground that it involved a separate competitor seeking divestiture, whereas this case concerns an attempted return to plaintiffs of stock previously owned by them, i…