Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query 382 AND 70 AND Albertson returned 9 results.

	MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498) Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers. During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. A. The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations Under the antitrust laws.
	MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498) Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers. During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. A. The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations Under the antitrust laws.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER (UPS) who wanted to drive small trucks and vans but are not qualified to do so under a vision protocol that UPS developed when the Department of Transportation (DOT) removed vehicles weighing less than 10. INC. 14625 vision protocol discriminates against disabled persons who are otherwise qualified to drive small trucks and vans. The district court found in a published opinion that Francis and Ligas were disabled but not otherwise qualified. That Hogya was not disabled. The court found that the ability to drive safely is an essential job function but that the company's safety standard must be applied equally to monocular as well as binocular applicants. It also found that UPS's vision protocol is not job related or consistent with business necessity because less discriminatory alternatives exist to job qualify applicants. In all events unless those who fail to pass are provided an individualized opportunity to demonstrate that they are as qualified to drive safely as those whom UPS ordinarily hires. INC. injunctive relief that was ordered.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 14626. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. INC. 7 The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. (UPS) who wanted to drive small trucks and vans but are not qualified to do so under a vision protocol that UPS developed when the Department of Transportation (DOT) removed vehicles weighing less than 10. Alleging that UPS's vision protocol discriminates against disabled persons who are otherwise qualified to drive small trucks and vans. The district court found in a published opinion that Francis and Ligas were disabled but not otherwise qualified. That Hogya was not disabled. The court found that the ability to drive safely is an essential job 8 EEOC v. It also found that UPS's vision protocol is not job related or consistent with business necessity because less discriminatory alternatives exist to job qualify applicants. In all events unless those who fail to pass are provided an individualized opportunity to demonstrate that they are as qualified to drive safely as those whom UPS ordinarily hires.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows. Were on joint brief for the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER Romero was subsequently deported to Mexico on July 24. Romero was taken into custody by United States Border Patrol agents in or near Hobbs. Romero was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of illegal reentry of a deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony. A presentence investigation report (PSR) was prepared and disclosed to the parties. Adding sixteen levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because Romero was previously deported following a conviction for a crime of violence. We have. The court then asked if there was anything defense counsel wanted to say on Romero's behalf. A year and a half ago I would have filed a motion for a downward departure on cultural assimilation for this client. Fully cognizant of what is his robust criminal history. He was brought here when he was eight months of age. I make this request fully cognizant of what is a checkered history. His guideline range is 57 to 71 months. Now that the guidelines are advisory. The offense level is 21.
	OPINION/ORDER Contending that it is unconscio 5606 DAVIS v. The merits of the underlying claims in her complaint are not at issue here. Because the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under California law. A cover memorandum stated: