Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

312 F.2d 747

Docket No. 17133.

L. Gilbert Cohen v. Time, Inc., and Life Circulation Co.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

February 12, 1963.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1963-02-12

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1974

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In considering this motion, the Court is fully aware that a summary judgment should be granted with caution and only where the movants have established the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact. The showing made likewise must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff should be accorded any and all favorable inferences that may be deduced from the showing. It is with these principles in mind that the Court approaches the question as to whether or not these two movants are entitled to the relief which they seek.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fancher v. Baker

Relies on First Kentucky Company v. William M. Gray, District Director of Internal Revenue for Kentucky · Shafer v. United States · Cohen v. Curtis Publishing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1963-02-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; Gunnar Nordbye, Judge.

L. Gilbert Cohen, Minneapolis, Minn., made argument and filed brief pro se.

Edward J. Schwartzbauer, Minneapolis, Minn., made argument for appellees and Curtis D. Forslund and Dorsey Owen, Marquart, Windhorst & West, Minneapolis, Minn., were on the brief with him.

Before VOGEL, BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an action to recover treble damages under the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Laws, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1, et seq., and 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq. Plaintiff-appellant, who has appeared in the District Court and here pro se, claims that Time and Life were parties to a conspiracy among various publishers to allocate the sponsored circulations market to themselves.

¶2

Time and Life moved for summary judgment, basing their motion on interrogatories, depositions, correspondence between the parties and affidavits of Time and Life employees. Nothing was introduced in behalf of the appellant to counteract the showing by the appellees. In a cogent and carefully detailed opinion, the District Court fully demonstrated the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact and accordingly granted appellees' motion. No purpose could be served in the reiteration here of the reasons given by the District Court and accordingly we affirm on the basis of its opinion, Cohen v. Curtis Pub. Co., D.C. 31 F.R.D. 569.

/312/f2d/747 · .json · Public domain