Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al
The opening statements to the jury of 4 attorneys and the testimony of 2 expert witnesses are presented in the case of Ohio-Sealy et al. versus Sealy Inc. et al. This case involved the principle of resale price maintenance. On June 13, 1986, a jury returned a verdict awarding damages (trebled) of ap...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Antitrust law & economics review 1989-01, Vol.21 (1), p.9 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 9 |
| container_title | Antitrust law & economics review |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Brace, Frederic F Webb, Dan K Joslin, Rodney D Wildman, Max E |
| description | The opening statements to the jury of 4 attorneys and the testimony of 2 expert witnesses are presented in the case of Ohio-Sealy et al. versus Sealy Inc. et al. This case involved the principle of resale price maintenance. On June 13, 1986, a jury returned a verdict awarding damages (trebled) of approximately $75 million to Ohio-Sealy and some $45 million to the other plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, for a total of $122 million. Morton I. Kamien, testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, asserted that Sealy label products constitute a relevant submarket within the entire market and that, had the defendant, Sealy Inc., not used its "right of first refusal" to prevent Michigan-Sealy from acquiring the Sealy license in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1978, sales volume in the latter market area would have been some 45% higher and factory prices 33% lower. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_197410934</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>940834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_1974109343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDAw1jUzMLHgYOAqLs4Ccc1MjDkZPPwLUvMy89IVgksSS1JzU_NKihUS81IUQlKLSzJz8_MqrRT8MzLzdYNTE3MqFVJLFBJz9BTK9BTAfB0Fz7xkPYgoDwNrWmJOcSovlOZmUHRzDXH20C0oyi8sBZoWX5RakF9UUhxvaGluYmhgaWxiTIwaAAuQOC8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>197410934</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Brace, Frederic F ; Webb, Dan K ; Joslin, Rodney D ; Wildman, Max E</creator><creatorcontrib>Brace, Frederic F ; Webb, Dan K ; Joslin, Rodney D ; Wildman, Max E</creatorcontrib><description>The opening statements to the jury of 4 attorneys and the testimony of 2 expert witnesses are presented in the case of Ohio-Sealy et al. versus Sealy Inc. et al. This case involved the principle of resale price maintenance. On June 13, 1986, a jury returned a verdict awarding damages (trebled) of approximately $75 million to Ohio-Sealy and some $45 million to the other plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, for a total of $122 million. Morton I. Kamien, testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, asserted that Sealy label products constitute a relevant submarket within the entire market and that, had the defendant, Sealy Inc., not used its "right of first refusal" to prevent Michigan-Sealy from acquiring the Sealy license in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1978, sales volume in the latter market area would have been some 45% higher and factory prices 33% lower.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-6048</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ALERDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>McLean: Antitrust Law & Economics Review Inc</publisher><subject>Antitrust ; Competition ; Licensing ; Litigation ; Price fixing ; Resale price maintenance ; Supreme Court decisions ; Violations</subject><ispartof>Antitrust law & economics review, 1989-01, Vol.21 (1), p.9</ispartof><rights>Copyright Antitrust Law & Economics Review Inc. 1989</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brace, Frederic F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, Dan K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joslin, Rodney D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildman, Max E</creatorcontrib><title>Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al</title><title>Antitrust law & economics review</title><description>The opening statements to the jury of 4 attorneys and the testimony of 2 expert witnesses are presented in the case of Ohio-Sealy et al. versus Sealy Inc. et al. This case involved the principle of resale price maintenance. On June 13, 1986, a jury returned a verdict awarding damages (trebled) of approximately $75 million to Ohio-Sealy and some $45 million to the other plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, for a total of $122 million. Morton I. Kamien, testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, asserted that Sealy label products constitute a relevant submarket within the entire market and that, had the defendant, Sealy Inc., not used its "right of first refusal" to prevent Michigan-Sealy from acquiring the Sealy license in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1978, sales volume in the latter market area would have been some 45% higher and factory prices 33% lower.</description><subject>Antitrust</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Licensing</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Price fixing</subject><subject>Resale price maintenance</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Violations</subject><issn>0003-6048</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDAw1jUzMLHgYOAqLs4Ccc1MjDkZPPwLUvMy89IVgksSS1JzU_NKihUS81IUQlKLSzJz8_MqrRT8MzLzdYNTE3MqFVJLFBJz9BTK9BTAfB0Fz7xkPYgoDwNrWmJOcSovlOZmUHRzDXH20C0oyi8sBZoWX5RakF9UUhxvaGluYmhgaWxiTIwaAAuQOC8</recordid><startdate>19890101</startdate><enddate>19890101</enddate><creator>Brace, Frederic F</creator><creator>Webb, Dan K</creator><creator>Joslin, Rodney D</creator><creator>Wildman, Max E</creator><general>Antitrust Law & Economics Review Inc</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>19890101</creationdate><title>Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al</title><author>Brace, Frederic F ; Webb, Dan K ; Joslin, Rodney D ; Wildman, Max E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_1974109343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>Antitrust</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Licensing</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Price fixing</topic><topic>Resale price maintenance</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Violations</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brace, Frederic F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, Dan K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joslin, Rodney D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildman, Max E</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Antitrust law & economics review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brace, Frederic F</au><au>Webb, Dan K</au><au>Joslin, Rodney D</au><au>Wildman, Max E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al</atitle><jtitle>Antitrust law & economics review</jtitle><date>1989-01-01</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>9</spage><pages>9-</pages><issn>0003-6048</issn><coden>ALERDA</coden><abstract>The opening statements to the jury of 4 attorneys and the testimony of 2 expert witnesses are presented in the case of Ohio-Sealy et al. versus Sealy Inc. et al. This case involved the principle of resale price maintenance. On June 13, 1986, a jury returned a verdict awarding damages (trebled) of approximately $75 million to Ohio-Sealy and some $45 million to the other plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, for a total of $122 million. Morton I. Kamien, testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, Michigan-Sealy, asserted that Sealy label products constitute a relevant submarket within the entire market and that, had the defendant, Sealy Inc., not used its "right of first refusal" to prevent Michigan-Sealy from acquiring the Sealy license in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1978, sales volume in the latter market area would have been some 45% higher and factory prices 33% lower.</abstract><cop>McLean</cop><pub>Antitrust Law & Economics Review Inc</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-6048 |
| ispartof | Antitrust law & economics review, 1989-01, Vol.21 (1), p.9 |
| issn | 0003-6048 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_197410934 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
| subjects | Antitrust Competition Licensing Litigation Price fixing Resale price maintenance Supreme Court decisions Violations |
| title | Opening Statements and Testimony: Ohio-Sealy et al. v. Sealy, Inc. et al |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T23%3A44%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Opening%20Statements%20and%20Testimony:%20Ohio-Sealy%20et%20al.%20v.%20Sealy,%20Inc.%20et%20al&rft.jtitle=Antitrust%20law%20&%20economics%20review&rft.au=Brace,%20Frederic%20F&rft.date=1989-01-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=9&rft.pages=9-&rft.issn=0003-6048&rft.coden=ALERDA&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E940834%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=197410934&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |