MUELLER

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE (CALIFORNIA, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST)

Citator

Cited By (54 total)

• Hardage Enters., Inc. v. Fidesys Corp., N.V., 570 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
  …rding to the great weight of authority in this country, specific wording is not a precondition to finding that a release precludes negligence claims. See, e.g., LeSueur Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc., 660 F. 2d 342, 352 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1716, 72 L.Ed.2d 138 (1982); Berwind Corp. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 532 F. 2d 1, 4 (7th Cir.1976); Larsen v. Vick Tanny International, 130 Ill.App.3d 574, 85 Ill.Dec. 769, 474 N.E. 2d 729 (5th Dist.1984); Gross v. Sweet, 49 N.Y.2d 102,…
• Rojas v. Kloster Cruise, 550 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
  …"base of operations” factor between vessels like the M/S Southward and special purpose structures such as a submersible drilling rig, see Bailey, 697 F. 2d at 1274-75; Chiazor v. Transworld Drilling Co., 648 F. 2d 1015 (5th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1714, 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Rivera, 595 F.Supp. at 628, only goes to prove the validity of the principle we apply here. This is because, following the Rhoditis rationale, the area of competition involved between drilling rigs obviously i…
• Fina OIL & Chem. Co. v. L.D. Boyette, 530 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …Key Corp. v. Cole National Corp., 762 F. 2d 1569, 1579, n. 8 (11th Cir.1985); J.T. Gibbons, Inc. v. Crawford Fitting Co., 704 F. 2d 787, 796 (5th Cir.1983); Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 658 F. 2d 139, 153-54 (3d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1715, 72 L.Ed.2d 137 (1982). “The intent must be to gain control over some relevant market sufficient to set prices in that market or exclude competitors therefrom.” American Football League, 205 F.Supp. at 65. If, however, a monopoly alr…