Knutson

Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc.

Good Law

468 F. Supp. 226·4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2424·1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13593

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1979C-73-1354-CBRCalifornia9,732 words

Opinion

Renfrew, J.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

In August 1973 a group of independent newspaper dealers brought suit in this Court against the publishers and certain officers of the newspapers they distributed, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2. After extensive discovery and a lengthy trial, this Court on September 23, 1974, rejected three of plaintiffs’ claims for relief but found that the publisher’s written Dealership Agreement, which prohibited the dealers from selling their papers to subscribers at a price above the publisher’s suggested price, constituted a vertical price restraint that violated Section 1 of the Act. See Knutson v. Daily Review, 383 F.Supp. 1346, 1357 (N.D.Cal.1974). Because plaintiffs had failed to prove either the fact or amount of their injury, however, the Court declined to award damages. 383 F.Supp. at 1384 .

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It agreed that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover on the three claims for relief this Court had rejected. However, it disagreed with the Court’s reasons for denying plaintiffs damages for the Section 1 violation. Noting that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.

Parties

Douglas K. KNUTSON, Arlen N. Benham, Geoffrey Beatty, Laura Duarte, Evan Francis Williams, Joseph W. Berthiaume, Kenneth W. Jackson, Jean E. Nyland, Daniel A. Dutra, Willard B. Kittredge, Robert A. Dutra, and Gayle C. Ely
Plaintiff
the DAILY REVIEW, INC., a Corporation, Bay Area Publishing Co., a Corporation, Floyd L. Sparks, an Individual, William Chilcote, an Individual, Dallas Cleland, an Individual, John Clark, an Individual, Carl Felder, Individually and Doing Business
Defendant

Judges

Renfrew

Cites (38)

383 F. Supp. 1346
548 F.2d 795
282 U.S. 555
246 F.2d 368
438 F. Supp. 470
526 F.2d 1196
370 U.S. 19
273 U.S. 359
327 U.S. 251
559 F.2d 488
500 F.2d 659
43 L. Ed. 2d 400
463 F. Supp. 983
89 S. Ct. 1562
429 U.S. 477
389 U.S. 191
431 U.S. 720
434 U.S. 881
469 F.2d 742
327 F.2d 459
433 U.S. 36
246 U.S. 231
390 U.S. 145
193 F. Supp. 427
298 F.2d 1
7 L. Ed. 2d 785
493 F.2d 383
42 L. Ed. 2d 63
31 F. Supp. 316
297 F.2d 906
230 F. Supp. 638
498 F.2d 1137
433 F.2d 1073
454 F. Supp. 847
20 L. Ed. 2d 169
340 U.S. 211
572 F.2d 883
370 U.S. 294