TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ovitron Corporation v. General Motors Corporation

OVITRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

Ovitron Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 512 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 24, 1975
Docket
Nos. 334, 335, Dockets 73-2285, 73-2486
Judges
Feinberg, Mansfield, Holden
Citations
512 F.2d 4421975 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594321 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,959

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Ovitron Corporation appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dudley B. Bonsai, J., dismissing its antitrust action against General Motors Corporation. 364 F.Supp. 944 (1973). General Motors cross appeals from certain findings made in that opinion.

Ovitron’s complaint alleged that General Motors, through its Delco Division, had deliberately underbid its costs on a government contract in order to capture the market and stifle competition. In his opinion dismissing the complaint Judge Bonsai held that Ovitron, the lowest bidder after General Motors, had failed to present a prima facie case that it would have been awarded the contract had it not been for the lower General Motors bid. Essentially he found that Ovitron did not make a sufficient showing that the Government would have found Ovitron to be a “responsible” supplier — that is, that it had the available plant capacity and personnel and financial resources to successfully complete the contract. We agree arid affirm the judgment on that basis.

We find it unnecessary to reach the issues raised by General Motors on its cross appeal: whether the Squad Radio, the subject of the contract, could constitute the relevant market; whether General Motors could, and did, possess monopoly power in that market; and whether General Motors purposefully bid below its anticipated costs in order to acquire market control.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1980: 11984: 12007: 119802026peak 1980 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Auburn ex rel. Board of Public Works & Safety v. Mavis468 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Thompson v. VIGO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS876 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
  3. American Standard, Inc. v. Bendix Corp.487 F. Supp. 265 (W.D. Mo. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. VIGO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS876 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
  2. City of Auburn ex rel. Board of Public Works & Safety v. Mavis468 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
  3. American Standard, Inc. v. Bendix Corp.487 F. Supp. 265 (W.D. Mo. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ovitron Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 364 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 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