Summary

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corporation…

A combination of facts constituting two or more causes of action on the law side of a court does not congeal into a single cause of action merely because equitable relief is also sought. And, as already noted, a prior judgment is res judicata only as to suits involving the same cause of action. [16] There is no merit, therefore, in the respondents' contention that petitioners are precluded by their failure in the 1942 suit to press their demand for injunctive relief.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corporation…

In 1942, together with a number of others in similar businesses, petitioners commenced a treble-damage anti-trust action against National Screen and the three producers who had already granted exclusive licenses to National Screen. The complaint alleged that the defendants had conspired to establish a monopoly in the distribution of standard accessories by means of the exclusive licenses and that the plaintiffs' businesses had been injured as a consequence. The complaint also alleged that National Screen was then negotiating with the other major producers to procure similar licenses.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Earl Warren Earl Warren Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corporation…

In their present complaint, petitioners allege that the settlement of the 1942 suit was merely a device used by the defendants in that case to perpetuate their conspiracy and monopoly. They also allege: that five other producers have joined the conspiracy since 1943; that National Screen has deliberately made slow and erratic deliveries of advertising materials under the sublicense in an effort to destroy petitioners' business; and that for the same purpose National Screen has used tie-in sales and other means of exploiting its monopoly power.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature