Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1991

Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America

Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided June 28, 1991 · Gibson, Loken, Ross
935 F.2d 990; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James J. Raymond, argued (Conny Da-vinroy Beatty, on brief), St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., Douglas C. Ross, Seattle, Wash., argued (Payton Smith and Mary Steele, Seattle, Wash., and Robert S. Allen and Eric D. Paulsrud, St. Louis, Mo., on brief), for ap-pellees.

Eureka Urethane, Inc. v. P.B.A., Inc. And the Professional Bowlers Association of America

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Eureka Urethane, Inc. appeals from summary judgment entered by the district court 1 rejecting its seven claims based on sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2 (West Supp. 1991), because PBA, Inc., and the Professional Bowlers Association of America refused to approve Eureka’s “Bud Ball” for use in televised bowling tournaments. 746 F.Supp. 915. In addition, the court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a pendent state law claim based on tortious interference with business relationships. The case has been exhaustively briefed by the parties and oral arguments heard. We are not persuaded that the district court made any error of law in its thorough and carefully researched opinion. We affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.