# STELWAGON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee, v. TARMAC ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 27, 1995 · 63 F.3d 1267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488456

## Case

- **Full name:** 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,103, 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1113 Stelwagon Manufacturing Company v. Tarmac Roofing Systems, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 1995
- **Citations:** 63 F.3d 1267; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27721; 1995 WL 501426
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Cowen, Lewis, Garth, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, McKee, Sarokin
- **Cited by:** 127 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488456

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a claim in a secondary-line price discrimination case under the Robinson-Patman Act is supportable upon proof of a substantial price discrimination between competitors over time
- reasoning that at the summary judgment stage, Courts may only consider hearsay statements that would be capable of admission at trial.
- rejecting challenge to admissibility of expert evidence of damages but holding that expert testimony was not legally sufficient to support damages award because expert did not provide evidence that lost sales were caused by defendant’s price discrimination
- declining to consider whether the plaintiff had offered sufficient proof of the amount of damages, since the plaintiffs' proof of loss in general was inadequate
- holding that district court erred in relying upon anecdotal evidence of customer statements as proof of lost sales

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Sept. 27, 1995.
The petition for rehearing filed by appel-lee, Stelwagon Manufacturing Company, in the above-entitled case having been submit *1279 ted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in bane, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judges Becker, Stapleton and Mansmann would have granted rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488456. Public record. Not legal advice.