TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Beverage Distributors, Inc., a Corporation v. Olympia Brewing Company, a Corporation, Olympia Brewing Company, a Corporation v. Beverage Distributors, Inc., a Corporation

Beverage Distributors, Inc., a Corp. v. Olympia Brewing Co., a Corp., Olympia Brewing Co., a Corp. v. Beverage Distributors, Inc., a Corp., 395 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 17, 1968
Docket
No. 22364_1
Citations
395 F.2d 850

Opinion

395 F.2d 850

BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 22364.

No. 22364A.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 17, 1968.

Ben H. Parkinson, Jr. (argued), Douglas P. Ferguson, of Ackerman, Johnston, Norberg & Parkinson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant Beverage Distributors, Inc.

David Brice Toy (argued), John C. McHose, David Strain, of Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee Olympia Brewing Co.

Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and BELLONI, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

The court views the temporary injunction as an interim order which attempts to approximately maintain the status quo ante, a little difficult to do because of the interposition of "fair trading." Under the circumstances, the court is generally satisfied with the temporary injunction. It does not believe that the temporary injunction necessarily reflects what the ultimate disposition will be.

2

This court believes it would be appropriate to amend the temporary injunction to permit, until judgment in the district court, Beverage Distributors, Inc., to buy all of the beer from Olympia Brewing Company it desires to buy, subject to such qualifications as that the purchases should not require Olympia to construct new facilities and the purchases should be ordered in a timely manner so that Olympia will not be seriously discommoded in deliveries to others. The district court is authorized and requested to make such modifications.

3

This court does not believe the temporary injunction should approach "permanency" simply because of delays in getting to trial and suggests that the parties should try to expedite the case in the district court. Perhaps the time spent on this appeal by both sides would have been enough to get the case to trial by now.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 395 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1968) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list