Loading…

Bezak v. Ohio — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Bezak v. Ohio

37 L. Ed. 2d 403 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 11, 1973

Full text

Bezak v. Ohio

Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 8993689

Citations

37 L. Ed. 2d 403
412 U.S. 943
93 S. Ct. 2788
1973 U.S. LEXIS 2153

Cited by

In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation
C.D. California · Mar 2, 1992
Norwood v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
D. Oregon · Sep 23, 1991
In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation. State of Arizona v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Continental Oil Co. Gulf Oil Corp. Phillips Petroleum Co. Caribou Four Corners, Inc. And Powerine Oil Co., State of California v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Exxon Corp. Gulf Oil Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Atlantic Richfield Co. Getty Oil Co. And Phillips Petroleum Co., State of Oregon, on Behalf of Itself, Its Residents and All Political Subdivisions Within the State Similarly Situated v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. And Shell Oil Co., and Getty Oil Co. Gulf Oil Corp. And Phillips Petroleum Co., State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities and Residents v. Standard Oil Co. Of California Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Co. Of California Atlantic Richfield Co. Exxon Corp. Gulf Oil Corp. Mobil Oil Corp. Shell Oil Co., and Getty Oil Co. And Phillips Petroleum Co.

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

Arizona v. Standard Oil Co.

Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

George Borunda and Richard Borunda v. Michael Richmond and Richard Way, Police Officers, City of Salinas

Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1989

Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

D. Rhode Island · Jul 27, 1988

47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 865, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,062, 23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 17 Gerard A. Cassino and Sally Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., a New York Corporation

Ninth Circuit · May 15, 1987

Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

Ninth Circuit · May 15, 1987

Link v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1985

Computer Identics Corporation v. Southern Pacific Company

First Circuit · Mar 7, 1985

Casey v. Diet Center, Inc.

N.D. California · Jul 17, 1984

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. The City of Oakland, a Charter City and Municipal Corporation

Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 1983

Parentheticals

“ ‘By its own terms, Clayton Act recovery is available only where actual injury has been suffered.’"
Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co.
coercion versus exposition, persuasion, argument
David A. Yentsch, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Texaco, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee