Richfield Oil Corporation v. Karseal Corporation

Good Law
271 F.2d 709·1959 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,486·2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 754·1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5304
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 13, 195915514California10,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carter, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in a private treble damage action under the anti-trust laws. It presents two questions, (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment, (2) the correctness of instructions given the jury on the effect of a prior decree in a government anti-trust case.

There was originally presented a third question, the reasonableness of an allowance of $7,500 attorney’s fee based on the trebled judgment of $23,700. This point was abandoned by appellant Rich-field during the oral arguments on the appeal. In any event we do not consider the allowance of such attorney’s fee unreasonable.

This case has been here before. In Karseal Corporation v. Richfield Oil Corporation, 9 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 358 , this same panel of the court held that the amended complaint stated a cause of action and reversed a district court judgment dismissing the action. Reference is made to that decision for the pertinent allegations of the amended complaint.

This action was based upon a prior decree in the government’s civil anti-trust action against the Richfield Oil Corporation, United States v. Richfield Oil Corporation,…

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.