Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
U.S. V. MICROSOFT
Holley argued the causes for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court's charge to the jury was insufficiently specific and LePage's's damages proof was speculative.2 The district court granted 3M's motion for 1. The plaintiffs in this action are LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Company. Both are appellees and cross appellants. 679 to which interest was to be added. We will affirm the district court's order granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Packaged them for the retail consumer. 3M is a manufacturing powerhouse. It was NicSand's only competing supplier of DIY retail automotive coated abrasives and now. It is a monopolist of what NicSand alleges to be a distinct economic market. The wholesale and retail markets for DIY retail automotive abrasives are small and highly concentrated. Although the retailers were not contractually bound to stay with a particular supplier. The gravamen of the Amended Complaint is that 3M monopolized and attempted to monopolize the abrasives market through the exclusivity provisions of the contracts that the discounts accompanied. It is possible to draw certain conclusions from the allegations. The complaint notes that sales by the six largest retailers accounted for 80% of the retail market and that 3M executed exclusive contracts with four leaving only Wal Mart (which was subject to the wrap around program) and Pep Boys as possible distributors for NicSand's products. This change would have increased 3M's (retail) market share from 20% to 73% (assuming that NicSand and 3M split the Pep Boys's business evenly).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations (
|
|
INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP
Of counsel on the brief were David Vance Lucas. With him on the brief was Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the
|
|
01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002
At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. Pay phone service providers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As follows: On page 9 the designation for the footnote is corrected. Line 8 the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alvarez LLP were on brief. S were on brief. The suit was dismissed at the pleadings stage under Fed. Have agreed to and created a monopoly in the JUA as to all forms of low cost compulsory insurance and have boycotted and coerced at least one broker in order to maintain that monopoly. The private insurers and the JUA argue that this monopoly is a result required by the state law. That is untrue. The claims before us are a different matter: a federal antitrust suit raises different issues than issues of compliance with local statutes. It was estimated that only 25 percent to 30 percent of the vehicles in Puerto Rico were covered under some type of liability insurance.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
MetroNet is able to meet the Centrex 21 line minimum and pass on Centrex volume discounts to MetroNet's customers. By requiring that each location receiving discounted Centrex features have at least 21 lines. The district court's grant of summary judgment was in error. Although it is indeed a close question. Call waiting and call hold (the features component).3 The access component of Centrex is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 4495. Replace the sentence beginning
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This civil antitrust action was instituted by plaintiffsappellants Apothecon. The suit was brought under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are based on the alleged anti competitive conduct of defendants appellees Barr Laboratories. Which is the primary chemical ingredient used to make warfarin sodium. This litigation is about protecting the operation of our competitive markets. Safeguard consumers by protecting 1 The code of rules that most directly influenced modern boxing was first published in 1867 under the sponsoring of John Sholto Douglas. There are 12 rules in all. Are not designed to protect competitors from one another's conduct. (Apothecon) is a wholly owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis. (Barr) is a competing manufacturer of generic warfarin sodium. Inc. is a Canadian corporation that. Was known as ACIC (Canada) Inc. (hereafter ACIC/Brantford). ACIC/Brantford is a supplier of various chemicals used in manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs.
|
 |
95-1411 -- SPORTS RACING SERVICES, INC. V. SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC. -- 10/28/1997
SCCA is a nonprofit organization that organizes and sanctions amateur sports car racing events for twenty three classes of sports cars. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The first class is composed of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees.
|
|
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association. With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers. With him on the brief were Greg A. Walters. Also on the brief was Dennis D. Argued for defendant appellant. With him on the brief were Leigh O. Of counsel on the brief were John P. plaintiffs ) that ConAgra was liable for attempted monopolization and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Properly found the 027 Patent invalid and unenforceable for reasons of both prior use and prior sale under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The district court was also correct. Announced that it was making the 027 Patent and corresponding patents that may issue available for license at a royalty rate of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lay
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we concur that PNI could not have recouped the investment in predation it might have made. We will affirm. Those appearing directly on newspaper editorial pages are called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. That the award is arbitrary and capricious. Is beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority. I. BACKGROUND ACET and Duke are companies that participate in the natural gas industry in Panola County. ACET is predominately a Gatherers contract with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellant. Roberto Boneta and Mu oz Boneta Gonz lez Arbona Ben tez & Peral were on brief for appellee. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. We will Harrison Aire. Is an FAA licensed pilot and aircraft mechanic. Which it contends is a result of Raven/Aerostar's monopolization of the relevant balloon fabric aftermarket. Raven Industries is a diversified manufacturing company based in Sioux Falls. Hot air balloons are regulated from cradle to grave by the Federal Aviation Administration. Balloon manufacturers are required to provide their customers with a balloon maintenance manual. The manual is in two parts. All replacement parts must be
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellee Nucor is the dominant producer of hot rolled coil for the relevant geographic market. Which was later converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Group was formed to purchase certain of its assets in the Gadsden mill that could be used to produce hot rolled coil (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. Northwest's prices were below its relevant costs for these routes. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case was tried to a jury for ten weeks. A verdict was returned in favor of the boat builders for $44. Post trial motions were filed by both sides. Judgment was eventually entered for the boat builders in the amount of $133. They are located in various states. An additional party plaintiff is an Illinois buying cooperative composed of recreational boat manufacturers. 32 1 Brunswick's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim. Neither side contests the finding of the jury that the relevant market is the market for inboard and stern drive marine engines. Since the early 1980s there have been a number of manufacturers in the market. Stern drive engines are used primarily in recreational power boats known as runabouts. Which are typical water skiing boats. Which are larger and more expensive boats and usually have cabins. The market share requirements were reduced so that the maximum 3% discount could be earned by buying 70% from Brunswick. Another feature was added to the program in 1989 to offer long term discounts of an additional 1 or 2% to anyone who signed a market share agreement for two to three years.3 Boat builders also could receive a volume discount of up to 5% based on the quantity of engines purchased.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Missouri. Eleven of the cases were dismissed. Holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. Even if the plaintiffs were not indirect purchasers. They were nevertheless inappropriate plaintiffs under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Associated General Contractors of California. I. Since the case was dismissed on the pleadings. We may affirm a dismissal on the pleadings
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the decision of the district court. 1. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
|
|
BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)
The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.
|
|
BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)
The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A standard dose of FortovaseŽ (saquinavir) is 1. Fortovase is effective in doses of 800 mg twice a day. Schor's contention is that Kaletra sells for less than a cocktail made by combining Abbott's Norvir with a protease inhibitor from some other supplier.). The disparity between the unduly high price of Norvir and the unduly low price of Kaletra is designed to monopolize the market in protease inhibitors. Schor calls the strategy
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It serves OE This is amended to correct the formatting of the trademarks. 2 No. 05 3344 better as a booster for other protease inhibitors. A standard dose of FORTOVASEŽ (saquinavir) is 1. FORTOVASE is effective in doses of 800 mg twice a day. Schor's contention is that KALETRA sells for less than a cocktail made by combining Abbott's NORVIR with a protease inhibitor from some other supplier.). The disparity between the unduly high price of NORVIR and the unduly low price of KALETRA is designed to monopolize the market in protease inhibitors. Schor calls the strategy
|
 |
98-1026 -- FULL DRAW PRODUCTIONS V. EASTON SPORTS INC. -- 06/29/1999
Who are archery manufacturers and distributors. We reverse and remand.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
SER contends that PP&L impermissibly curtailed purchases of SER generated electric energy and that SER was therefore unable to compete with PP&L in the provision of electric energy to consumers in the retail market and resellers in the wholesale market. SER is PP&L's supplier. That PP&L's generation curtailment policy does not create an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. We will affirm. Any person who owns or operates facilities used to transmit or sell electric energy in interstate commerce is subject to the jurisdiction and regulatory power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Kramer & Friedman was on brief. LLP were on brief. BACKGROUND The Serpa Corporation is a distributor of plumbing supplies. Serpa was the exclusive sales representative in New England for certain plumbing supply products manufactured by defendant Anaco. Couplings are used to transport human waste from buildings to sewer lines. Because the products are manufactured in accordance with industry standards. They are virtually identical across companies. The products were sold through exclusive sales representatives. Tyler was a competitor of Anaco's. Rather than have Serpa serve as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Fernando R. Perkins were on the brief of amici curiae AT&T Corporation. Were on the brief of amici curiae States of New York. With him on the brief were Michael K. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Virginia. Were on the brief of amici curiae The United States and Federal Communications Commission supporting neither party. Roth and Laurence Gold were on the brief of amicus curiae Communications Workers of America in support of appellees. Ellis were on the brief of amici curiae BellSouth Corporation. Arguing: (1) the allegations in its complaint relative to the 1996 Act are materially different from the allegations held deficient in Trinko. (2) at least some of its allegations are of conduct independently proscribed by the Sherman Act.* We conclude that most of the allegations in Covad's complaint do not state an antitrust claim. The baseless and bad faith patent suit only the alleged refusal to deal states an antitrust claim and therefore should not have been dismissed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the challenged agreement does not have a direct. Tomatoes had a very short shelf life if they were picked from 11012 UNITED STATES v. Consumers are unable to access vineripened tomatoes for much of the year. Most United States consumers are relegated to eating foreign tomatoes that are picked before they are ripe. So they will still be fresh after shipping. Tomatoes picked in this fashion have a poor flavor compared to vine ripened tomatoes. The contract provided that LSL would have the exclusive rights to the North American market. Which is the UNITED STATES v. Hazera may engage in such activities only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the subject tomatoes do not have or involve long shelf life qualities which are included in LSL's proprietary rights. The Restrictive Clause was amended to allow Hazera to sell other seeds (e.g. The government alleged that the Restrictive Clause is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from the dismissal under Fed. Who are cigarette wholesalers. The District Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under both the Noerr Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines. We agree they are immune under the Noerr Pennington doctrine but not under the Parker doctrine. We will affirm. Are cigarette manufacturers who were original signatories to the Multistate Settlement Agreement. They are collectively known as the major tobacco companies or the Majors. The Majors are responsible for 98% of cigarette sales in the United States.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The four defendants are Healthchoice. The and Orlando Regional hospital's parent The incidents giving rise to the lawsuit are Dr. attempt to gain provider membership in unsuccessful Healthchoice and CFMA. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact about Dr. That the defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The following is a summary of the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Levine is an internist. completing his residency in California. Was granted. Provisional staff privileges at the ORHS hospitals.2 ORHS is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates five Orlando area hospitals: Orlando Regional Medical Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue is whether Siemens's refusal to sell or license patented or copyrighted goods to the appellants is an illegal use of monopoly power in a secondary market.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It was too difficult and costly to produce commercially until the early 1980s. Baxter was not willing to bear the costs of the required medical testing. 2 No. 02 2039 So in 1988 it granted to Maruishi Pharmaceutical Company. An exclusive worldwide license to practice the sevoflurane process patents Baxter owned or was pursuing. Where it was a great success. Today sevoflurane is the best selling gas used for anesthesia in the United States. Isoflurane is not protected by any patent and sells for less. It is slower in both onset and recovery and has an irritating taste and smell. Though its properties otherwise are comparable to sevoflurane which therefore has become the anesthetic of choice and commands a premium price. Ohmeda could receive approval without costly tests just by showing that the finished product is identical to Abbott's. It was acquired (in 1998) by Baxter which decided to proceed No. 02 2039 3 with Ohmeda's plans and compete with the sevoflurane made by Maruishi and sold in the United States by Abbott.
|
|
EMPAGRAN S.A., ET AL V. F. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE
Gallagher argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Michael D. Duggan argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge: The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and appellants now appeal.
This appeal requires us to interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (". On domestic or foreign United States commerce. And s 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce ".
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Michael D. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge: The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce. S 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will AFFIRM the district court's order denying class certification. Rodney claims that he was harmed by Northwest's monopolistic practices in 1996. Another antitrust plaintiff who was represented by the same counsel. The court also held that Sax was not a proper member of the class. Both of whom are experts in the economics of the airline industry. We will not find an abuse of discretion without
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm because plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show harm to competition. That the agreement is part of a monopolization scheme. That the defendants are engaged in unlawful tying of products. We affirm principally because appellants have failed to allege facts that. BACKGROUND Because this is a dismissal under Fed. E&L was the distributor of green hemfir lumber in New York. Those allegations are as 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 distribution arrangement gave rise to the present dispute. Green hem fir lumber is an inexpensive. Durable wood that is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The natural gas industry is partially deregulated. Are regulated by the relevant state authority.1 In Indiana. The state authority is the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). Gas delivered through interstate pipelines for transport eligible users is brought as far as the connection to IG's distribution network. Is required to transport the gas from that point to the end user. This is compared to the traditional fee structure used by LDCs for their residential and other small quantity customers. No. 01 2727 3 pipeline is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
SBS and HBC are the two largest owners of Spanish language radio stations in the United States. Courts have played an extremely important role in shaping the reach of the Act and the requirements for stating a cause of action under each section. 1579 n.8 (11th Cir. 1985) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant and remand with directions to grant the Government's request for injunctive relief. Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in York Pennsylvania. The relevant market is the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States. Artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by a low or no growth potential. Is about 15 times larger than its next closest competitor. The other significant manufacturers and their market shares are: 4 Ivoclar Vivadent. There are hundreds of dealers who compete on the basis of price and service among themselves. The relationship is essentially terminable at will. Dealer Criterion 6 was enforced against dealers with the exception of those who had carried competing products before 1993 and were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Berthelsen were on brief for appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
|
|
03-6067 -- STAR FUEL MARTS V. SAM'S EAST INC. -- 03/19/2004
(2) Sam's sales to its members were not made with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor. The member price is five cents per gallon lower than the price for nonmembers. Ninety percent of the gas sold at the Memorial Store is to members. Sam's sells only unleaded and premium gasoline. The district court found that Sam's gasoline operations were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Berthelsen were on brief for appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Warner & Stackpole LLP were on brief. Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief. Viewing them as favorably to SMS as reason and the record will permit. These models were more powerful and more versatile than their predecessors and embodied certain distinctive technological advances. A three year warranty in the mid range server market was uncommon in 1994. One year warranties were the norm indeed. DEC's conception of a warranty as an instrument of competition is scarcely original. Because a warranty is a mechanism through which a consumer can protect himself against the uncertainties inherent in owning a product that likely will require parts and service over time. This attraction is magnified in some cases because a strong warranty signals a manufacturer's faith in the quality of its product. SMS's claim that DEC's warranty is anticompetitive appears odd at first blush. There is. The aftermarket for servicing computers is both dynamic and lucrative. SMS an ISO that operates nationally and specializes in servicing DEC equipment puts a sinister cast on DEC's introduction of
|
|
LEVINE V. CENTRAL FLA. MED. AFFILS.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Levine v. The four defendants are Healthchoice. The incidents giving rise to the lawsuit are Dr. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact about Dr. That the defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The following is a summary of the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Levine is an internist. Was granted. Provisional staff privileges at the ORHS hospitals.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-3145.opa.html">LEVINE V. CENTRAL FLA. MED. AFFILS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levine v. The four defendants are Healthchoice. The incidents giving rise to the lawsuit are Dr. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact about Dr. That the defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The following is a summary of the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Levine is an internist. Was granted. Provisional staff privileges at the ORHS hospitals.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1266C171B8838FD8825701200018908/$file/0335669.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. These mills are part of what is often called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Schering Plough settlements unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The Upsher Settlement Schering Plough (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7079.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires a plaintiff to prove that an allegedly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1165.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 28. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Will & Emery. (2) make findings regarding allegations of anticompetitive consequences of the merger that were unique to Holyoke. Northeast Utilities Service Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5050a.html">ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS V. BIOVAIL CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL<BR></A><BR>
Singer were on brief. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Singer were on brief. Todaro were on brief. Unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to (b) or (j) of this section is effective with respect to such drug.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/428F9664DECF516888256A9C008197DE/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B4EAC42C9C5754588256E5A00707C20/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-6234.man.html">CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234)<BR></A><BR>
Remand for further proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-6234.man.html">CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234)<BR></A><BR>
Remand for further proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01869D985FA0790588257353005142B7/$file/0556023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I This action was filed by linkLine Communications. Who are Internet Service Providers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1196_085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that the purpose of federal antitrust law
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FEB6303A3722B1C88256DFA0000D73C/$file/0156447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published at 343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) is amended as follows: Footnote 4 appearing on page 1013 is deleted and replaced by new footnote 4. Which reads as follows: Nor is it (1) Hairston v. 101 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1996) (where antitrust standing was questionable and where the plaintiffs failed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB8399534AEFABA188256D9B0079C65A/$file/0156447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. All allegations of material fact in the complaint are regarded as true and construed in the light most favorable to Digital Images. Digital Images' second amended complaint was not subject to dismissal unless it appeared beyond doubt that Digital Images could prove no set of facts in support of its claims that would entitle it to relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Morris is a media company that publishes print and electronic newspapers. PGA is the sponsor of a series of professional golf tournaments throughout North America known as the PGA Tour. RTSS is an elaborate electronic relay scoring system that relies on state of the art computer technology and equipment as well as dozens of trained workers and volunteers. 2 RTSS works as follows. The scores are then collected by other volunteers. The scores of all participating golfers are then processed at the remote production truck and transmitted to PGA's website. Which are scores that are transmitted electronically nearly contemporaneously to their actual occurrence on the golf course. The compiled scores are also transmitted to an on site media center where members of the media are able to access the scores. The same information is also transmitted to various electronic leaderboards located throughout the golf course. The 3 only source of compiled golf scores for all tournament players is RTSS. The only physical location at which to obtain compiled golf scores is the media center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1288r.html">ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORP. V. ELO TOUCHSYSTEMS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was Michael G. The questions raised are whether a federal unfair competition claim irreconcilably conflicts with and is therefore barred by federal patent or antitrust law. That these statements were false. Elo Touch argued that its activities in support of its patent rights were governed by federal patent law and applicable antitrust rules. Thus the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws are in effect
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1148.html">MULTISTATE LEGAL STUDIES V. HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH LEGAL AND PROF. PUBS.<BR></A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff in this antitrust action is Multistate Legal Studies. Were the reason PMBR's Colorado market share dropped from 84 percent in 1991 to 23 percent in 1993. Because we are remanding the case for trial of other issues. Two types of bar review courses are relevant to this litigation:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-5076.htm">02-5076 -- GREEN COUNTRY FOOD MARKET, INC. V. BOTTLING GROUP, LLC. -- 06/22/2004<BR></A><BR>
1291 and AFFIRM. <strong></strong> <p><strong>BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Plaintiffs are corporations that operate grocery stores. Davis had recognized that they were often unable to sell their Pepsi products at prices competitive with other area grocery stores. Bottling Group is majority owned by Holdings. Holdings is indirectly wholly owned by The Pepsi Bottling Group. Davis have acquired. Plaintiffs therefore have no access. All allegations were predicated on Bottling Group's refusal to deal with Plaintiffs following Plaintiffs' initiation of the price discrimination lawsuit against BPC. <p> The district court denied Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment in favor of Bottling Group and Holdings. That the complaint should have been treated by the district court as constructively amended. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. <u>Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982847.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The managed health care industry has drastically changed the way medical and pharmaceutical services are dispensed in this country. Competition is keen over what company will administer an employer's health plan. 2 In September 1995. Medco was required to assemble an extensive statewide network of pharmacies which would agree to fill prescriptions at a steeply discounted rate. The Maryland Plan was scheduled to go
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1626.html">ILAN GOLAN (DOING BUSINESS AS GOLAN PRODUCTS) V. PINGEL<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1196.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Laura A. Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0229p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The third of which is the subject of this controversy. So far as professional football was concerned. That was it for 12 years. Although suggestions for team names came pouring in (one was the Cincinnati Buckeyes). The modern day Bengals have played in three different home stadiums. It is Hamilton County that claims it was the real loser because it signed a lease with the Bengals for the stadium that it now calls
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C798066B53CD96088256F18007C604E/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the incumbent local exchange carrier (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/031664P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Northwest was the eighth largest airline in the United States. Republic was the ninth largest. The merger was sanctioned by the Department of Transportation but was not granted antitrust immunity. Notification of the class was postponed while the district court considered Northwest's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. That there are three reasons why its suit. Though it was filed eleven years after the merger. Midwestern also argues that its action is not barred by laches. Midwestern asserts first that Northwest's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs appellants are four title insurance companies that do business in Michigan: First American Title Company (a subsidiary of First American Corporation). The defendants appellees are the Registers of Deeds of five counties in Michigan: Lapeer. First American contends that this no resale condition is an anticompetitive practice that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. We affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the Tuscola County Register because those practices are covered by state action immunity from antitrust liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A register of deeds (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1323.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>David . Of counsel on the brief were <U>P. With him on the brief were <U>Jonathan I. Of counsel on the brief were <U>C. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph . Of counsel on the brief were <U>Bruce M. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph Kattan</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-6133.wpd.html">HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/64E580A7DFBAC36A88256D24007F898B/$file/0135849.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case involves an array of antitrust law challenges to what we conclude are reasonable and unremarkable business practices. (Paladin) is a Montana corporation that marketed natural gas to industrial customers within Montana and other western states.1 Paladin obtained natural gas from producers in Canada and Montana and arranged for the gas to be transported to its customers through a pipeline owned by the defendant. Our statement of facts is adapted from the district court's description. Both parties stipulate that the district court's description is accurate. 1 PALADIN ASSOCIATES. MONTANA POWER CO. 6225 Gas produced in Canada is delivered into MPC's pipeline via the NOVA Corporation's pipeline in Alberta. Gas produced in Montana is delivered into MPC's pipeline via another pipeline in north central Montana. Some of the gas transported interstate across MPC's pipeline is delivered into the Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) pipeline at the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6174802957C1E1688256E3500552E84/$file/0236057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which marks the second time the parties have been before us. The responsibilities of the Idaho Public Utility Commission to review and approve certain conduct of PacifiCorp challenged in this case by the Snake River Valley Electric Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313605.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that Andrx's allegations regarding a licensing agreement entered into by Elan and another competitor to settle a separate infringement suit were insufficient to support an antitrust action under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The district court's order is AFFIRMED in part. We will begin by briefly summarizing the relevant statutory provisions. After which we will recount the relevant facts specific to the parties. Different FDA approval standards apply depending on the drug the applicant is attempting to market. The facts are derived from the allegations in Andrx's complaint. Are presented in the light most favorable to Andrx. Our inquiry is limited to the allegations in the first amended complaint. 3 1 requirements outlined in § 355(b). Or would only violate a patent on a § 355(b) approved drug which is invalid. Which is then given forty five days to initiate patent infringement proceedings against the ANDA applicant. § 355 grants the first manufacturer to file an ANDA application for a generic drug using the type of certification outlined in § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) an exclusive 180 day period to market the generic drug before another ANDA application is approved for a similar generic drug. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)(I).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this proposed class action is the extraterritorial scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its application in this case. We will affirm. I. The major United States air carriers have delegated the licensing of travel agents to their trade association. IATA was founded in 1945 by the then major global airlines. With the goals of promoting international air transportation and providing a 3 agents must have an IATA license to access reservation systems of United States based airlines. The travel agent's commission is automatically computed from a database in the airline's electronic system. The Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference is an IATA committee of airline company representatives who determine and fix the commission rates for travel agents. Provided such immunity was found to be required in the public interest. Agreements affecting foreign air transportation were approved and immunized by the CAB under broad public interest standards. United Airlines are members of the Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/98-2006.man.html">MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)<BR></A><BR>
PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license <EM>Harry</EM> if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/98-2006.man.html">MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)<BR></A><BR>
PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license <EM>Harry</EM> if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2466.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The last U.S. patent covered by the agreement was scheduled to expire in May 1993. While the last Canadian 2 No. 01 2466 patent was not scheduled to expire until September 1995. Scheiber acceded to the suggestion and the agreement was drafted accordingly. Federal jurisdiction over the suit is based on diversity of citizenship. Patent misuse) is irrelevant to jurisdiction. Because the royalties were to be based on Dolby's sales of equipment within the scope of the patents and once a patent expires. There is no equipment within its scope. Anyway the reference to equipment within the scope of the patent was clearly meant to identify the equipment on which royalties would be based (Dolby makes equipment that does not utilize Scheiber's patents as well as equipment that does) rather than to limit the duration of the obligation to pay royalties. Dolby's principal argument is that the Supreme Court held in a decision that has never been overruled that a pat No. 01 2466 3 ent owner may not enforce a contract for the payment of patent royalties beyond the expiration date of the patent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2218.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nadzo and Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry were on brief for appellee Mid Maine Waste Action Corp. Kandutsch and Verrill & Dana were on brief for appellees Waste Management. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee City of Auburn. Were seeking to monopolize the waste disposal business and otherwise acting in violation of federal and state law. I. THE BACKGROUND This case is one of several in which state and local communities have taken measures to cope with their waste collection responsibilities. Private haulers have been adversely affected and responded with antitrust suits. In this one the history is tangled and the claims numerous. As is customary in reviewing dismissals for failure to state a claim. Non stock corporation to assist in waste disposal. 2 2 The entity Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0801p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court erred and will vacate its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.[fn2] I. Mainframes and Upgrades The facts underlying this nine year old dispute are minutely detailed and quite voluminous. We will present only a brief summary here. IBM is the world's largest manufacturer of large scale mainframe computers. These machines have the capacity to process millions of records at a time and manage a tremendous volume of information. Mainframes are physically large machines. They are quite expensive. Mainframes are available in a wide range of computing capacities. One common measure of capacity is computing speed. In what is known as a MIPS upgrade. Many IBM mainframes are not purchased outright from IBM by their end users. Are instead leased through third party leasing companies such as CMI and Comdisco.[fn3] A mainframe will typically be leased to several end users during its life cycle. Then when obsolete will be scrapped. The computer will need to be reconfigured to meet the needs of the next lessee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1966p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The refusal to deal is said to have become a group boycott. Is said to have become a co conspirator. 1998. 5 siding distributors were concerned that the entrance of a new price cutting competitor could destabilize the market and substantially cut into their profit margins. The principal players in this drama are plaintiffs Joseph Rossi. Minor roles were played by defendants Wood Fiber Industries. We believe that the record is sufficient to enable Rossi to survive summary judgment on the antitrust claims as to Standard. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of concerted refusals to deal teaches that not every situation in which a distributor is cut off at the behest of his competitors constitutes a group boycott entitled to per se treatment. Legitimate efforts by manufacturers to impose reasonable rules limiting intra brand competition would be outlawed and the beneficial effects such actions have on inter brand competition would be lost. Are not implicated here. Typically because it is difficult for the plaintiff to demonstrate that what the manufacturer or supplier did was inconsistent with independent action or that the claimed conspiracy makes economic sense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5037a.html">USA V. MICROSOFT CORP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/033993P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Appellants' Allegations and Procedural History Appellants allege as follows: Monsanto wished to extract the monopoly profits it would have earned from certain genes it had patented. Which provides for class certification if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944323.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court. 1 Two questions are presented: first. Whether a public utility is immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. The denial of a motion for summary judgment under the state action immunity doctrine is immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The appeals were then consolidated by order of this court as they both involve the same parties and the same issues. Are taken from the same summary judgment order. 1 * 63 S.Ct. 307. Whether lobbying of a county legislative body by the utility is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr/Pennington doctrine. The district court found that the utility was not entitled to immunity from antitrust sanctions for its actions. The denial by the district court of the utility's Cogeneration is the production of electricity and useful thermal energy at a single facility.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1287p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have standing to bring an antitrust action against the sellers of the photocopies. We hold that such clients lack standing to bring a treble damages claim because they are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/995791.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Texas Pacific Group's agreement to restrict the hiring of certain employees upon Lucent's sale of Paradyne Corp. was a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. W e hold the no hire agreement was a valid covenant not to compete that was reasonable in scope and therefor e not a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Act. Also we hold plaintif fs have presented sufficient prima facie evidence of AT&T and Lucent's specific intent to interfer e with an ERISA funded employee pension fund to survive summary judgment on the ERISA S 510 claim. The pr emise for the hiring bar was AT&T's belief that one of Paradyne's most marketable assets was its skilled employees. Was considered essential for the sale of Paradyne. Were pr ecluded from seeking re employment at any other AT&T division or affiliate after the trivestiture. This
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1783.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Engel were on brief for appellants. Hynes with whom Michael Fehner was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from a summary judgment for defendant in a civil antitrust action brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Parties The plaintiffs are three railroad companies owned by Guilford Transportation Industries. They are the Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M). The defendant appellee is Canadian Pacific Ltd. The Market The market subject to the alleged attempted monopolization is. The principal 2 customers are thirty plants producing building materials. Twenty three are on Guilford's lines. Three are on a line of the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad in Maine. One is on the short line Aroostook Valley Railroad in northern Maine. Three are on the St. There are no plants on a CP line. Is that CP. Which was in fragile financial circumstances. The existence of predatory conduct three of the four requisites of an attempt to monopolize are not in issue. What is to be decided is whether the complaint and affidavits raise a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1362p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY UNKNOWN). WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY UNKNOWN). We will reverse and remand the following claims: (1) Breach of Contract (Eleventh Count). We find that summary judgment was properly granted against Ideal. We will therefore affirm the district court's order dismissing all of the antitrust claims. Is a New Jersey corporation owned by Mark Greenberg and Gil Levine. Tuscan was owned by Lou Caiola. Levine were aware that the contract had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7098.htm">97-7098 -- SOUTHERN DISPOSAL INC. V. TEXAS WASTE MANAGEMENT -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
The City notified Southern Disposal it was no longer authorized to collect trash within the city limits after March 31. Southern Disposal filed suit. <p> The district court first addressed the federal questions involved to determine if federal jurisdiction was appropriate. Because no property right was implicated and both parties were granted fair and equal opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process. <p> <u><strong></u></strong> Appellant argues on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously ruled that Southern Disposal's complaint fails to state any antitrust violation pertaining to the solid waste disposal market for Choctaw County. (2) the actions of the Defendants are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because the Oklahoma legislature is constitutionally prohibited from articulating a state policy to permit displacement of all competition in the solid waste management business. The standard of review is <em>de novo</em>. <em> See Chemical Weapons Working Group. We will uphold a dismissal on this basis
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/97-1715a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1270.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is amended as follows: In footnote 1. 1993 is amended as follows: On page 7. Millimet & Branch were on brief for appellants. Bass & Green were on brief for appellees. Both sides are engaged in providing medical services through health maintenance organizations (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/97-1715b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D971661C3CE8DF6488256C1E00030FEF/$file/0115963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Once those contracts were canceled. It dismissed the federal antitrust claims on the ground that the Postal Service was protected by sovereign immunity from antitrust liability. It determined that the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a tort claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That claim was properly dismissed because it is preempted by federal law. (6) venue for the Postal Service Procurement Manual claim was properly laid in the Northern District of California. Which provides in relevant part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4131.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Sitting by designation. (1) The case was originally filed as No. It was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. <hr> and breach of contract. Summary judgment is proper only if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1527p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before this court on appeal from an order of the district court granting summary judgment on all counts to the appellees in this antitrust action brought against them by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. An examination of the parties and conduct in question is first necessary. A national professional organization of attorneys whose membership is open to members of any bar in the United States. There were 177 ABA accredited law schools in the United States and over 50 unaccredited schools with some form of state approval such as MSL enjoys. Many states have methods of satisfying the legal education requirement other than graduation from an ABA accredited school. The AALS is an association of 160 law schools which serves as a learned society for law schools and legal faculty and as a representative of the law school community with the federal government and other education organizations. D.C. have granted petitions of graduates of MSL to take the bar. The ABA allows graduates of non accredited schools to join the ABA once they are admitted to a bar and does not prohibit its members from hiring or otherwise dealing with graduates of such schools.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6293.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> O'Brien. This case is the latest in a long running dispute between Moshe Tal. The powers of an urban renewal authority are exercised by commissioners. 11 Okla. One statutory requirement is that the plan allow private developers the opportunity to obtain redevelopment contracts. 11 Okla. The Bricktown redevelopment plan was amended in 1997 as the MAPS <hr> Sports Entertainment Parking Support Redevelopment Plan. The City's intended use was public parking. Which was modified on October 2. The final decision was made by the City Council only after two years of public meetings. Inc.'s land had been impermissibly taken for private use and the redevelopment contract was awarded amid
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0050ECCF160B0C088256D3B007427E7/$file/0156245.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Two cases have been consolidated in this appeal. This simple and elegant device is known as a polymeric positive temperature coefficient device or PPTC. Was uncertain as to how successful it would be. Was classified by the company as confidential and was intended to influence its decision making on nearly $100 million worth of investment and to be used for further research allocations. His first plan was to develop his own company. Parts of the plan were copied verbatim from Raychem's strategic plan. Even typographical errors were faithfully reproduced. Hogge was working on a PPTC plan for Bourns. Hogge was interviewing former and current Raychem employees for jobs at Bourns. Which was negotiating for more licenses from Raychem. Denied to Raychem that Hogge was working for it. RAYCHEM CORPORATION 7487 was aware of having received any sensitive information from Raychem. Hogge testified that this statement was truthful because he had burned the documents on August 19. This testimony was contrary to Hogge's deposition testimony that he burned the documents after August 30.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1711.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 8. Hamilton & Scheetz were on brief for appellant. Marquez and Drinker Biddle & Reath were on brief for appellee. After the suit was transferred to the district court in Puerto Rico. After the case was transferred to Puerto Rico. An amended complaint was filed. Since the amended complaint was later dismissed on the pleadings. What follows is SAS's version of the facts. PRTC is a Delaware corporation that provides about 90 percent of the telephone service within Puerto Rico and operates over 95 percent of the pay phones in Puerto Rico. All of the stock of PRTC was acquired about 20 years ago by the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0709p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in this case are. Bell of Pennsylvania told Pastore that it planned to order the same system for all of its 800 facilities if this pilot project was successful and that it might extend to as many as 4. The pilot project was timely completed and Bell of Pennsylvania officials expressed satisfaction with NASSCO's performance. Pastore was informed that a security system had been installed by an entity entitled Integrated Access Systems in the Monroeville Revenue Accounting Center. Although the site was within the network of facilities to be installed and serviced exclusively by NASSCO. Other already approved projects which were part of the first planned phase involving installation of the CDACCSN statewide were not carried forward. While none of the work planned for the second or third phase was initiated. Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because they did not have adequate time for discovery. [fn3] and explicitly provides that the party must file an affidavit setting forth why the time is needed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As we are reversing the grant of summary judgment. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1463.html">NOBELPHARMA V. IMPLANT INNOVATIONS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: After our decision in this case was issued on August 2. Other claims are now barred by our recent en banc decision in BellSouth Telecommunications. This suit was brought by Covad. Unambiguously showed that there was no plain repugnancy between the FTCA and the Sherman Act. A judgment dismissing the action in its entirety was issued on October 11. Which held that the state PSCs did not have jurisdiction to interpret and enforce interconnection agreements under the FTCA. It is now clear that the FTCA and the Sherman Act were expressly intended to coexist. Trinko argued that Verizon's failure to fulfill its § 251(c)(3) obligations was part of an anti competitive scheme to discourage customers from becoming or remaining clients of CLECs. The Court noted that Aspen was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4109.htm">01-4109 -- LANTEC INC. V. NOVELL INC. -- 09/19/2002<BR></A><BR>
This antitrust case is just as important to the computer program developers involved. The facts and legal issues in this case are complex and will be discussed at length. The Lantec companies' basic argument is Novell drove them out of business. <p> We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0856p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0088p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant is a company that bid on two public construction projects. DSM submitted a bond only in the contract amount (that is to say. No one appears to have noticed the discrepancy in the amount of the bond at the time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA2OTktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0699-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of defendant Clear Channel Communications. Which is based in Texas. 2 Defendant. Plaintiff's Allegations Live Concert Industry in General The following facts regarding the live concert ticket industry are alleged in the complaint. A live concert is the product of negotiations between a concert promoter. Is ordinarily also responsible for the expenses of a show he promotes. How Much is Too Much? Was the direct result of Clear Channel's intentional use of its dominance in other markets. Clear Channel's alleged anticompetitive actions have led to reduced competition in the concert promotion market. These alleged unreasonable restraints have resulted in artificially high concert ticket prices and a decrease in concert information available to consumers. Plaintiff insists that any procompetitive benefits of defendant's actions are outweighed by these anticompetitive effects. The district court observed that resolution of the class action motion boiled down to one pivotal question: whether the relevant market for assessment of plaintiff's § 2 claim was national.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA2OTktY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0699-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of defendant Clear Channel Communications. Which is based in Texas. 2 Defendant. Plaintiff's Allegations Live Concert Industry in General The following facts regarding the live concert ticket industry are alleged in the complaint. A live concert is the product of negotiations between a concert promoter. Is ordinarily also responsible for the expenses of a show he promotes. How Much is Too Much? Was the direct result of Clear Channel's intentional use of its dominance in other markets. Clear Channel's alleged anticompetitive actions have led to reduced competition in the concert promotion market. These alleged unreasonable restraints have resulted in artificially high concert ticket prices and a decrease in concert information available to consumers. Plaintiff insists that any procompetitive benefits of defendant's actions are outweighed by these anticompetitive effects. The district court observed that resolution of the class action motion boiled down to one pivotal question: whether the relevant market for assessment of plaintiff's § 2 claim was national.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1156p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only facts before us are those alleged in the complaint itself. Diamond is the President of ASA and Division Director for General Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern is the President of CTSA and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern accused Brader of incompetence and of having improperly rendered trauma treatment to a patient who was on the call service of CTSA (Magovern's group) although the details of Magovern's displeasure are not spelled out in the complaint. It was opposed by Magovern. That Brader could not practice medicine at Allegheny General if he was not employed with ASA. Which Brader contends was not performed in accordance with Allegheny General's medical staff bylaws. In May 1990 after the study was completed. Brader alleges that Ochsner was a personal friend of Magovern. Brader contends that he was prevented from having an informal conference with Ochsner in violation of the medical staff bylaws. That Brader's mortality experience was not surprising or unexpected but recommended that his performance of ruptured AAA procedures should be supervised due to excessive morbidity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022152.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The motion is granted. The motion is denied in all other respects. This court denies Appellants' request for costs related to the preparation of its Motion to Strike and its Motion to Have Joint Appendix Corrected. 1 BERLYN INC. v. THE GAZETTE NEWSPAPERS 3 II A The plaintiffs are Berlyn. Berlyn is owned by Lynn and Bernie Kapiloff. Rossingol is a self described
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5362a.html">FTC V. H.J. HEINZ CO.<BR></A><BR>
Were on brief. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-5362a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Kovner were on brief. Were on brief for The Thirty Six Amici Curiae in support of the appellant. Skiles and Jan Amundson were on brief for Grocery Manufacturers of America. Bork were on brief for Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. The injunction was sought in aid of an FTC administrative proceeding which was subsequently instituted by complaint to challenge the merger as violative of. The baby food market is dominated by three firms. Gerber's products are found in over 90 per cent of all American supermarkets.2 By contrast. Heinz is sold in approximately 40 per cent of all supermarkets. Its sales are nationwide but concentrated in northern New England. Heinz is the largest producer of baby food in the world with $1 billion in sales worldwide. Its domestic baby food products with annual net sales of $103 million are manufactured at its Pittsburgh. Which was updated in 1991 at a cost of $120 million. That is. Of which 72 per cent is jarred baby food. Its jarred 1 The facts as set forth herein are based on the district court's factual findings and the record material submitted by the parties. 2 Product volume in retail stores throughout the country is mea sured by the product's All Commodity Volume (ACV).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1031.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The caption on the coversheet should read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1416.html">VIRGINIA V. MAC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974055P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Many millions of dollars were spent in order to accomplish the relocation. Louis Convention and Visitors Center (CVC) sued the National Football League and twenty four of its member teams (collectively the NFL) alleging that these expenditures were made necessary by actions of the NFL in violation of antitrust and tort law. The case was tried before a jury for over four weeks before it ended in a judgment in favor of the NFL. The initial goal was to obtain one of the two NFL expansion franchises to be established in 1993. The football stadium was called the Trans World Dome. Its $258 million cost was paid from state and local government funds. The stadium lease was assigned to CVC which became its manager and initially subleased the right to present football in the dome to private parties. The new franchises were awarded to Jacksonville. As a result a written agreement was eventually signed by CVC and the Rams. The proposal for the Rams to move 3 was initially voted down by the owners. It was later approved after the Rams agreed to pay the NFL a $29 million relocation fee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1361.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William J. With her on the brief were James M. With him on the brief were Charles H. Of counsel was Ahmed J. With him on the brief were Marc G. Of counsel on the brief was J. With him on the brief was Matthew S. Of counsel on the brief was John D. Of counsel was Joseph B. Philips specified that the same royalty was due for each disc manufactured by the licensee using patents included in the package. Regardless of how many of the patents were used. Potential licensees who sought to license patents to the technology for manufacturing CD Rs or CD RWs were not allowed to license those patents individually and were not offered a lower royalty rate for licenses to fewer than all the patents in a package. Were violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930. Were added through intervention. As a condition of licensing patents that were necessary to manufacture CD Rs or CD RWs. To take licenses to other patents that were not necessary to manufacture those products. The respondents argued that a number of the patents that Philips had included in the category of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0378p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the cooperatives (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7143a.html">DIAL A CAR INC V. TRANS INC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7080.htm">02-7080 -- PITTSBURG COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO.7 V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/971330P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(6) Potash 32 1 Both parties agree that the North American potash industry is an oligopoly.3 Prices in an oligopolistic market tend to be higher than those in purely competitive markets. Will fluctuate independently of supply and demand.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3327.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the arbitration award was entitled to preclusive effect and thus barred B S Steel's claims for damages. BACKGROUND B S Steel is an independent distributor of wide flange steel beams (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B047236FA5A85F588256CE4005D93F2/$file/0156199.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Competition is the mainspring of a capitalist economy. Setting industry standards and pooling market data are two examples of arrangements that often benefit consumers. Up to date information about properties on the market is a must. Long gone are the days when agents trawled the neighborhood on horseback in search of telltale
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87AC5BCFA140B13588256D110081AFED/$file/0156199.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended. The last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 3589 is amended to read as follows: Similarly. Found that a fast food franchisor and its franchisees were a single entity. The franchisees were located too far apart to be effective competitors. The last sentence on page 3590 is amended to read as follows: Cases have required instead that the constituent entities be neither actual nor potential competitors. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Circuit Judge: Competition is the mainspring of a capitalist economy. Setting industry standards and pooling market data are two examples of arrangements that often benefit consumers. Up to date information about properties on the market is a must. Long gone are the days when agents trawled the neighborhood on horseback in search of telltale
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-4323.opa.html">TEC COGENERATION INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TEC Cogeneration Inc. v. As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-1120.wpd.html">ZIMOMRA V. ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC.<BR></A><BR>
The daily usage fee was initially set at $2.98 and was to remain at that amount until October 1. Subsequent daily usage fees are to be established through the interaction of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-4323.opa.html">TEC COGENERATION INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TEC Cogeneration Inc. v. As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2ODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7683_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are affiliated corporations which. Are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1420.html">CABINET VISION V. CABNETWARE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1283p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that Orson failed to present evidence sufficient to show that Miramax engaged in an antitrust conspiracy or that the licenses were unreasonable restraints of trade. We will affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Miramax on Orson's antitrust claims. We will. Was owned and operated by the Posel Corporation. Was owned and operated by the Raysid Corporation. Posel was the President of both corporations. There were six other theaters in Center City. Four theaters with a total of 20 screens were operated by United Artists and two theaters with two screens each were operated by American Multi Cinema. The license is exclusive. The film will not be licensed to other exhibitors in a prescribed area. Such licenses are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1653.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief and reply brief for appellant. Gotshal & Manges and McConnell Valdes were on brief for appellees. When reviewing the dismissal of the antitrust claims we take the facts basically as stated in the complaint and make reasonable inferences that will help the plaintiff. We conclude that the district court should not have dismissed the antitrust claims. Caribe) is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4252.htm">01-4252 -- BELL V. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULURAL COOPERATIVE -- 11/07/2003<BR></A><BR>
The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative. Insurance. <p> If a member whose ranch is located beyond the established feed route still requests delivery. One of the cooperative's written objectives is to ensure members do not subsidize one another. The discounted price was one penny less per pound than the delivered price. <p> Jack Bell became a Fur Breeders member in 1955 and continued as a member until 2000. Is more than seventy miles from both the Logan plant and the nearest point of the established delivery route. 049.51. <p> <center>PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</center> <p> It is against this backdrop and the costs associated with hauling their own feed that the Bells brought their antitrust litigation against Fur Breeders. Determining their antitrust claims were sufficient to withstand such a motion. <em>Id. </em>at 1244 45. <p> Thereafter. A different district court judge was assigned to the case. Determining
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1532.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Paul R.Q. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph C. With him on the brief was Meredith B. With him on the brief was Bradley S. With him on the brief was Amy E.L. With him on the brief were Jeffrey L. Of counsel on the brief was Jerome C. With him on the brief were Lorane F. With her on the brief was Jim Hood. Which is directed toward insertion of a synthetic gene consisting of a 35S cauliflower mosaic virus (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-3202.htm">01-3202 -- U.S. V. AMR CORPORATION -- 07/03/2003<BR></A><BR>
Because we agree that the record is void of evidence that rises to the level of a material conflict. Affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stanko's primary argument is that the district court1 erred in concluding that The Honorable Joseph Bataillon. Were convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of violating the FMIA. Stanko sought a declaratory judgment that he was not prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1) because his conviction fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion. The district court reasoned that: (1) the exclusion was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/971330P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although much of the class's evidence of behavior in the potash industry was consistent with a price fixing conspiracy. The court held that the facts were equally consistent with legal oligopolistic behavior. The potash industry is an oligopoly1 in which the producers ended a price war and raised prices dramatically. The question is whether the class has shown that the 1 An oligopoly is a market in which there are few sellers. 3 new prices resulted from an agreement among the producers to raise and stabilize prices. Potash is a mineral which is an essential ingredient in fertilizer. Because potash is an essential ingredient. The demand for potash is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E850B862A18465C788256EA600528742/$file/0256509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The other to dismiss the complaint against the remaining defendants because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Sherman Antitrust Act's per se prohibition against price fixing is applicable to the economic arrangements between the defendants. Shell Oil Co. were once fierce competitors in the national oil and gasoline markets. Both Shell and Texaco sensed intensified competition in the downstream operations of their industry they similarly believed that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016460.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Maris was one of these distributors from 1968 1997 and was Anheuser3 Busch's exclusive distributor for the territory covering Gainesville and Ocala. The relationship between Anheuser Busch and each of its distributors is governed by a written contract referred to as the Equity Agreement. The Equity Agreement was amended to include a provision that precluded any public ownership (either through sale to a publiclyowned company or via a public offering of stock) of distributorships. It is this provision that is the subject of the instant lawsuit. Maris did not object to the amendment when the provision was added in 1969. The operative agreement between Maris and Anheuser Busch at the time this lawsuit was filed was the 1982 Equity Agreement. Paragraph 4(i) of which provided: Under no circumstances shall Wholesaler or any owner of Wholesaler have the right to transfer any ownership interest in the business of Wholesaler if such transfer would result in Wholesaler being owned in 4 whole or in part.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1967p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A large number of townhouse projects were already
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EE48B25DAA0402A88257116000ACBF6/$file/0455036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. 1674 SOSA v. The central question before us is whether DIRECTV is immune from liability under RICO. The signals broadcast from the satellites are electronically scrambled. DIRECTV obtained no information on the uses to which these individuals were putting this equipment. Nor does its satellite technology permit it to determine whether any particular individual is receiving its signal. DIRECTV is prepared to release its claims in return for your agreement to: (1) surrender all illegally modified Access Cards or other satellite signal theft devices in your possession. (2) execute a written statement to the effect that you will not purchase or use illegal signal theft devices to obtain satellite programming in the future. Nor will you have any involvement in the unauthorized reception and use of DIRECTV's satellite television programming. Please be advised that DIRECTV will 1676 SOSA v. Copies of the letters received by the named plaintiffs were lodged with the district court prior to the hearing on DIRECTV's motion to dismiss.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3075.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
REVERSE its determination that no sanctions were required against MSC. MSC was convinced its superior technology would give it a competitive advantage over its rivals. Was told (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> that the building in question was already leased and the lessee. The offer was contingent upon GE's acceptance by May 23. The day the offer was made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1157.htm">97-1157 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.R-1 V. MOODY'S INVESTOR'S SERVICES INC. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
Contending that Moody's evaluation was materially false. It reasoned that Moody's article was protected by the First Amendment because it neither stated nor implied an assertion that was provably false. BACKGROUND</u><strong></center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong> Because we are reviewing the district court's decision to grant Moody's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Concluding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1456_037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Doral are its principal brands) in both domestic and foreign commerce. (We refer to the practice as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/96-7246a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mause were on the briefs. During the mid 1980s C&W and CCC entered into a joint venture in which CCC was to develop a Caribbean wide FM broadcast ing system that C&W would then use to offer an FM paging service. CBS later sought and was granted leave to file a First Amended Com plaint in order to correct a technical error in its description of the ownership of CBS. The court explained that the complaint
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ensures that open source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws. Open source software is the Linux operating system. (UnixŽ is a trademark of The Open Group. The source code to many variants of AT&T's work is freely available.). Linux is one of many modern derivatives of Unix which is not itself under the GPL. Is entitled to charge for its software. Is maintained by a large open source community. People are free to charge for the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work. Thus are the most expensive part of using Linux. Daniel Wallace would like to compete with Linux either by offering a derivative work or by writing an operating system from scratch but maintains that this is impossible as long as Linux and its derivatives are available for free. Novell have conspired among themselves and with others (including the No. 06 2454 3 Free Software Foundation) to eliminate competition in the operating system market by making Linux available at an unbeatable price.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1005.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1300.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Joseph Angland. Of counsel on the brief was Elliot M. With him on the brief were Christopher S. Of counsel on the brief were Roy E. Of counsel on the brief were John W. With him on the brief were Morgan Chu and Jason D. Of counsel on the brief was Gordon A. With him on the brief were Steven M. There is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001141.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that although the defendants' conduct was wrong. It was nonetheless protected by Noerr Pennington. The first was comprised of citizen associations of Baltimore who opposed the shredder on environmental grounds. Until their role was inadvertently revealed in late March of 1993. The defendants' plan to prevent Baltimore Scrap from building a shredder was a closely guarded secret. Because the Baltimore zoning code does not allow the Board to consider
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="440"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1827p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court faced the question whether the use of violence in a labor strike to obtain higher wages and other benefits was extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. The Court reviewed the wording of the Act and its legislative history and determined that such conduct was not extortion. Which is not defined in the Act. Any violence or force to obtain property is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0107n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Nortel is a market leader engaged in the production of telephone and data systems. Both CTUnify and Global Knowledge are corporations that provide training on the use and application of Nortel telephone and data systems. Although the amended CTUnify's initial complaint merely alleged that the defendants were in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 26. Including numerous provisions that are wholly inapplicable in this case. The district court concluded that CTUnify was attempting to assert an impermissible tying arrangement in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. A. Alleged Violation of the Sherman Act The Supreme Court has explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2508.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Holding that the policies in question were not sufficiently related to RSA's injuries to support a finding of antitrust standing. <U>RSA Media. We affirm.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Case LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-6083.htm">97-6083 -- HALLCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC. V. COMANCHE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. -- 06/10/1998<BR></A><BR>
There is a non refundable application fee of $90. A $4.00 per ton tipping fee is added to each ton received at the landfill. A majority vote at a special county election is needed to approve the landfill at an additional cost of $24. There are specific location restrictions. Hallco initiated this action alleging its rights were violated by the enactment of the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1511.html">EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. GOODYEAR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carrying goods that are unloaded at the Supervalu warehouse and subsequently shipped to grocery stores in several states.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Fieldale is an integrated poultry company which enters into poultry growing contracts with growers. The Londons leased two other 1 A broiler is a baby chick. farms. The contracts are similar in content. Each contract is a separate agreement for the Londons' various farms: (1) contract for Green Meadows No. 1. The contracts are to run indefinitely or until thirty days after notice of termination by either party. The contracts also give Fieldale the option to terminate on only seven days notice when continuing the contractual relationship would have detrimental effects on Fieldale's business. The Londons are responsible for providing care and oversight for the broilers during the full term of the growth cycle. The Londons' responsibility is vital to the success of the business and encompasses a variety of duties. Such as maintaining adequate water and temperature for the baby chicks and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5252a.html">USA V. WE ELEC CO INC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-3038.htm">98-3038 -- MITCHAEL V. INTRACORP, INC. -- 04/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
In this antitrust case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210171.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-4714.man.html">ALL CARE NURSING SERV., INC. V. HIGH TECH STAFFING SERVICES, INC. (2/18/1998, NO. 95-4714)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Two separate actions (with different plaintiffs) against the same defendants for alleged antitrust violations have been consolidated and are treated as one appeal. Many issues were raised on appeal. Southern Florida was hit especially hard due to its increased demand for nurses in winter months to accommodate the high influx of people to the area at that time of year. They have the choice to provide services for any facility or person in need of such care. They are not limited to providing nurses to hospitals.</P> <P> During the pertinent period. Hospitals were faced with quality concerns.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1148p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Stelwagon was entitled to recover treble damages pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act. We believe it failed to present sufficient proof of actual antitrust damages and is. We will vacate the district court's judgment insofar as it awards Stelwagon treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act. We will. Affirm with respect to the breach of contract claim because we believe the district court correctly concluded that the contract claim was not barred by the Statute of Frauds. I. BACKGROUND Stelwagon is a wholesale distributor of roofing. Stelwagon also learned that Tarmac was selling MAPs to two competitors Standard Roofing Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1100.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Patrick McKay was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. The present appeal arises out of a federal antitrust case dismissed by the district court on the ground that it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The plaintiff appellant in this case is Neo Gen Screening. For profit Pennsylvania corporation whose business is the medical screening of newborn children. Neo Gen provides hospitals in various states with screening services to detect disorders in newborns but is being prevented by the defendants from doing so in Massachusetts. The principal defendants named in the complaint as currently amended are the University of Massachusetts. Two individuals Howard Koh and Ralph Timperi who are or were respectively the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and an Assistant Commissioner responsible for laboratory testing. Several other defendants were named in the original complaint but later dismissed by consent. The original complaint was filed on March 5. It was thereafter amended and reduced to two counts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0082p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023603p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving a $44.5 million nationwide settlement agreement between DuPont and the fixed co pay consumers and out of pocket consumers (collectively. Accordingly we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual History Warfarin sodium is a prescription oral anticoagulant medication sold in tablet form that is taken by more than 2 million Americans to treat blood clotting disorders. Fixed co pay consumers refer to those insured consumers who paid the same price for prescription drugs regardless of whether the drugs were name brand or generic. Out of pocket consumers refers to individuals who paid different prices for prescription drugs depending on whether they were name brand or generic. When a generic version of warfarin sodium was released onto the market following approval by the U.S. Class action plaintiffs have alleged that DuPont. DuPont's alleged violations are said to have begun when Barr Laboratories. On the grounds that the methods in place for determining bioequivalence were sufficient.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-4714.man.html">ALL CARE NURSING SERV., INC. V. HIGH TECH STAFFING SERVICES, INC. (2/18/1998, NO. 95-4714)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Two separate actions (with different plaintiffs) against the same defendants for alleged antitrust violations have been consolidated and are treated as one appeal. Many issues were raised on appeal. Southern Florida was hit especially hard due to its increased demand for nurses in winter months to accommodate the high influx of people to the area at that time of year. They have the choice to provide services for any facility or person in need of such care. They are not limited to providing nurses to hospitals.</P> <P> During the pertinent period. Hospitals were faced with quality concerns.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/97-6206.man.html">COLSA CORP. V. MARTIN MARIETTA SERVICES, INC. (1/23/1998, NO. 97-6206)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> At issue in this case is a government contract to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/97-6206.man.html">COLSA CORP. V. MARTIN MARIETTA SERVICES, INC. (1/23/1998, NO. 97-6206)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> At issue in this case is a government contract to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="417"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3253_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The suit might have been dismissed immediately. For Magnatech rather than Sanderson is the appropriate plaintiff. His injury (a reduction in the value of his stock) is derivative of Magnatech's. It is not the sort of jurisdictional problem that a court must notice on its own. R. Evid. 702 is doubtful. Lime deposits in plumbing are calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Which is non magnetic. Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable. This plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science. We shall indulge the assumption that adverse statements about Magnatech's products are calumnies. The problem is not that the pleading is short. Is that his complaint and other papers demonstrate that the claim rests on a belief that the antitrust laws forbid all
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="417"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0292p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Although this is an antitrust case. Which is a political subdivision of the state of Tennessee. The other defendants have committed antitrust violations. The state action doctrine protects subdivisions of a state government from antitrust liability when there is a clearly expressed state policy authorizing anticompetitive acts. Is whether Tennessee law authorizes the Hospital District to engage in anticompetitive actions. I The Hospital District is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1182a.html">MONEY STATN INC V. FRS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1616a.html">ATL TELE NTWRK INC V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1269.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seacoast claims that DaimlerChrysler's decision to authorize a new competing dealer near Salisbury was an arbitrary and unfair trade practice under Mass. Arguing that its chapter 93B claim sounded in antitrust and was thus not arbitrable under the so called <U>American Safety</U> doctrine. <U>See</U> <U>Am. Held that it lacked jurisdiction over Seacoast's appeal because the arbitrability decision was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052345np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. I. Only Stark's antitrust claims are before us.1 We exercise plenary review of the grant of a motion to dismiss and accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Only one of which is federal. The first amended complaint averred in pertinent part: ś 2: Stark is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033370p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gordon and two corporations of which he is the sole shareholder. The Hospital was entitled to immunity from money damages regarding the professional review actions at issue.1 Thereafter. We will affirm the comprehensive rulings of the District Court2 that resulted in judgment for the Hospital as to all claims. Is the only hospital serving Mifflin and Juniata counties in Pennsylvania. It provides primary and secondary acute inpatient care in addition to 1 The immunity provided by the HCQIA for persons engaging in the peer review process is limited to damages liability. 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a). The Credentialing Policy states in part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Rendezvous is a historical reenactment held each Labor Day weekend at the Fort Bridger Historical Site in Wyoming in which participants reenact an annual rendezvous held by local fur traders from 1825 to 1840. 000 visitors and is the largest of its kind in the region. Some of the members of the FBRA's fourteen person Board of Directors are also traders. As fewer than half of the traders are members of the FBRA. <hr> Among other things. Priority is given to traders who participated in the previous year's Rendezvous. He generally will receive the same space he occupied the year before. Or by traders who were at the previous Rendezvous but filed their applications after the deadline. Are accepted on a first come. The Gregorys were long time and large volume Rendezvous traders who offered a wide selection of goods at low prices as compared to most other traders including traders who were members and directors of the FBRA. Their trading post sales of goods were governed by a contract with the State of Wyoming rather than by the FBRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3565.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants are the principal manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Thus is no longer a party). HFCS is a sweetener manufactured from corn and used in soft drinks and other food products. There are two grades. Is bought mostly by producers of soft drinks. Are small. That the conspiracy was implemented the following year. Billions of dollars in treble damages are sought. We do not know whether the plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief. The suit was brought in 1995 and though an enormous amount of evidence was amassed in pretrial discovery. The soundness of this conclusion is the basic issue presented by the appeal. This statutory language is broad enough. That is. If a firm raises price in the expectation that its competitors will do likewise.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1253a.html">AIR TRANS ASSN AMER V. DOT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hernandez Mayoral with whom Rafael Hernandez Mayoral was on brief for appellants. Cespedes and Ana Matilde Nin were on brief for Welch Food. Peirats with whom Jacabed Rodriguez Coss was on brief for Magna Trading Corp. 1 that it was calling off the corporate marriage because of irreconcilable differences. Our review of the caselaw and circumstances persuades us that only the antitrust claims properly were dismissed. We therefore reverse the summary judgment on the other causes of action. 1 These two related corporations are both in the food distribution business. Factual Background The facts underlying this dispute essentially are undisputed. Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. Welch's international marketing manager initially had suggested internally that R.W. would have to drop the Donald Duck line
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/061559P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It instead should have applied the rule of reason. Pre Litigation Background The factual background is fairly extensive. We will not reiterate it in full here. Craftsmen is a Missouri corporation engaged in the business of stretching standard base vehicles into limousines and buses. While Craftsmen was actively engaged in the business of building stretched limousines. There were limits upon the total weight of the resulting limousines and the length to which they could be stretched (no more than 120 additional inches). Craftsmen was one of a minority of American coachbuilding companies that chose not to participate in either program. Joining the QVM program would have required Craftsmen to abandon its practice of building specialty limousines or to seek costly independent safety analysis. Craftsmen was already using techniques described in the QVM guidelines. Craftsmen's owners had no reason to believe that the company's converted vehicles were unsafe. Ford was also a nonvoting member of LIMO. American Coach was a voting member.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12B5E979646FEF1D88256FCF00033CA7/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031817.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in the cases now before this court have asserted a broad range of antitrust violations against Microsoft. The district court made its decision about each finding by determining that the finding was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Twenty nine full service wholesalers that are also direct distributors under distribution agreements with defendant appellee Philip Morris USA. Cigarette brands are divided into four price categories or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/04-1183a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Anne K. With him on the briefs was Brett A. With him on the brief were John S. The Act's fundamental purpose is to protect natural gas consumers from the monopoly power of natural gas pipelines. (Marketing affiliates are the separate affiliates of pipelines that sell natural gas. (ii) a factual record consisting of complaints by other sellers who were competing with pipelines' marketing affiliates and of documented abuses by pipelines and their marketing affiliates. Traders) that are affiliated with pipelines. Indicated that abuse by pipelines and non marketing affiliates was a real problem in the 4 industry. That the factual record on which FERC relied was barren and did not contain a single example of abuse involving non marketing affiliates. We therefore hold that the Order is arbitrary and capricious as applied to natural gas pipelines. We will grant the petition. Processors distill
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Feesers failed to show that it was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983123P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Poplar Bluff is a city of 17. It is located in Butler County. It is the largest city in several counties and has numerous major employers and manufacturing operations. 000 are forty and sixty miles away from Poplar Bluff. The population in the area surrounding Poplar Bluff is concentrated in Scott and Stoddard Counties. Poplar Bluff is within a few hours' drive of several large metropolitan centers including St. Lucy Lee is a general acute care hospital that provides primary and secondary care services.2 Lucy Lee has 201 licensed beds. 185 of which are staffed. Its average daily census was 75 in 1994. Doctors' Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff is presently owned by a group of physicians. It is also a general acute care hospital providing primary and secondary care services. Of which 187 are staffed. Its average census in 1994 was 106. In 1995 was 99. In 1996 was 95 and in 1997 was 77. Both hospitals are underutilized and have had problems attracting specialists to the area. Secondary care is somewhat more complex.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2114.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bird and Hestres</SPAN> were on brief. Nez</SPAN> were on brief. Facts</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1988.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Jay S. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. That are available through UHS. Two supplemental insurance options are available. That is. It lessens the risk that the LINA premium and the UHS clinic fee will reflect redundant coverage 1Graduate students are not required to pay the UHS clinic fee. Provided they have health insurance coverage that meets URI's requirements. for the same medical procedures.2 As a second option. Students who do not opt out of the LINA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-2565.opn.html">TECHNICAL RESOURCE SERVICES, INC. V. DORNIER MED. SYS., INC. (2/12/1998, NO. 95-2565)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P> These consolidated appeals arise from a civil antitrust dispute which was the subject of two jury trials. Which are manufactured by Dornier Medizintechnik. Lithotripters are medical devices which dissolve kidney stones through the use of shock waves. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-4323.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-2565.opn.html">TECHNICAL RESOURCE SERVICES, INC. V. DORNIER MED. SYS., INC. (2/12/1998, NO. 95-2565)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P> These consolidated appeals arise from a civil antitrust dispute which was the subject of two jury trials. Which are manufactured by Dornier Medizintechnik. Lithotripters are medical devices which dissolve kidney stones through the use of shock waves. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-4323.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. That Maryland's liquor regulatory scheme is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/96-5272a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Henk Brands. With him on the brief were David W. Albert were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Media Education. At issue is the facial constitutional ity of two provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Pro tection and Competition Act of 1992. Time Warner argues that both provisions facially that is. We conclude that both provisions are facially constitutional. The district court held that the subscrib er limits provision is unconstitutional. The channel occupancy provision is constitutional. The Standard of Review Time Warner argues that the subscriber limits provision is a content based restriction of its ability to communicate with its audience. As such is subject to strict scrutiny. See * The district court at least appears to have found the channel occupancy provision constitutional on its face. Whether or not the regulations ultimately promulgated by the Commission will pass constitutional muster under [intermediate scrutiny] is. The Government denies that the subscriber limits provision is content based.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981487P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Expires when one corporation merges with another and its stock is turned in and extinguished. Northwest and Republic were respectively the nation's eighth and ninth largest airlines and the two largest operators at the Minneapolis St. The merger was approved by the Department of Transportation. No antitrust immunity was granted for the transaction. After the merger was completed in August 1986. All of Republic's stock was turned in and extinguished. The district court dismissed Midwestern's complaint because it could not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/93-1110a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom John Haven Chapman and Christine McLaughlin were on the briefs. Raposa were on the briefs. McKenna were on the briefs. With whom David Cosson was on the briefs. General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Were on the joint briefs. Kraskin were on the joint briefs for intervenors Rural Telecommunications Group. For three years from the date of the upcoming LMDS auction.1 The FCC explains that its Order is designed to prevent LECs from acquiring LMDS licenses in order to preempt competition in the local tele 1 The FCC's challenged eligibility restriction applies to both local exchange carriers and cable operators. Provides both local exchange service and is the nation's third largest cable operator. Promulgated while the FCC was devising the current regime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/97-2334.man.html">BANKERS INS. CO. V. FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (3/26/1998, NO. 97-2334)<BR></A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1249.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were George M. With him on the brief were Stacey L. Of counsel was Mark A. Because we conclude that the district court erred in conducting a bench trial on the inventorship claim prior to a jury trial on the state law claims when there were common underlying factual issues. BACKGROUND Shum is an optical engineer who worked for many years in the field of optoelectric packaging technology. 1 Shum met Jean Marc Verdiell. Who is also an engineer experienced in the field of optoelectronics. Although Verdiell was still employed with SDL. Shum was named the sole inventor. During the Verdiell was named following months. Radiance was dissolved pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation. That patent Optoelectronic packages are devices that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0344p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before this Court for the second time. Substantive Facts Many of the facts set forth below were included in this Court's factual discussion in NHLPA I. Two of the teams are located in Michigan. One is in Pennsylvania. The remaining teams are based in Ontario. The others are European leagues and American colleges and high schools. Which is at the heart of this case. No overage player can be signed by an OHL team unless he was previously on a Canadian Hockey Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/97-2334.man.html">BANKERS INS. CO. V. FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (3/26/1998, NO. 97-2334)<BR></A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972334.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972334.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5502a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were James M. With her on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief were Lloyd N. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing a complaint filed against the National Science Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-6109.htm">97-6109 -- LE BAUD V. FRISCHIE -- 08/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is an orthopedic surgeon who held medical staff privileges at Defendant Appellee Comanche County Memorial Hospital [Memorial] in Lawton. After Plaintiff's staff privileges were revoked by Memorial. Fahey were the only two orthopedic surgeons practicing in Lawton. Who was then Memorial's Chief of Medical Staff. Curry determined that further review was necessary. <p> Two orthopedic surgeons from Baltimore. LeBaud was inadequate in all cases reviewed. This was harmful to the patients who suffered significant articular cartilage damage. <p> There was a significant problem noted in judgement of surgical indications . . . where patients were subjected to unnecessary anesthesia and procedures. <p> There was a major problem in selecting and carrying out the proper surgical procedure with disastrous results for the patients. . . . <p> . . . . <p> This doctor appears willing to undertake complex procedures with which he has no or little experience. All of whom were cross examined by Plaintiff's counsel. The bylaws provide that if appellate review is not requested within ten days of notice of the recommendation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1390.html">MONSANTO COMPANY V. HOMAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief. With whom Palmer & Dodge LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Mindful that important First Amendment values are at stake. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the computer industry. An operating system is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0424p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. We conclude that the district court's implicit grant of summary judgment to DFA on that claim was in error. Is a milk marketing organization and the largest dairy farmer cooperative in the nation. DFA's primary purpose is marketing the raw. Southern Belle Southern Belle is a limited liability company formed in February 2002. Fifty percent of the voting interests in Southern Belle was owned by the Allen Family Limited Partnership (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963158.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its dispositive order which is reproduced in the appendix. APPENDIX ORDER This antitrust case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I will be granted. Summary judgment will also be granted on Count II of the complaint. Is a Florida professional corporation whose shareholders are Dr. Lambrau and Stewart are board certified ophthalmologists who have specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the retina and vitreous. RA's practice is limited to retina related ophthalmology. Is a not for profit Florida corporation that owns and operates the Baptist Medical Center. Situated on the Baptist Medical Center campus is a four story building that houses the Baptist Eye Institute (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061638P.pdf">N:\DOCS\PATTY\06-1638 HDC V. MINNTECH OPN 1.18.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Inc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972586.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although Lockhurst 2 is outside the City of Winston Salem's geographic limits. The City refused to purchase Carolina Water's water service facilities because a part of the system was constructed from asbestos cement and would require replacement. Provides: Whenever any premises shall have been connected with the city sewer system. It shall be the duty of the owner of such premises to make immediate application in writing for connection with the water system and to have such connections made or to install an approved sewer measuring device and maintain same. . . . The city shall have the right to go upon private premises to which such sewer service is provided and to excavate and disconnect the sewer service . . . . When public water became available the 22 Lockhurst residents were informed of the joint local utility commission's new public water service capabilities. The residents were notified that they had one month to comply with Section 44 by connecting to the City's water supply system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1302.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal question in this antitrust suit is whether at shelf coupon dispensers are an economic market. Ill. 2003). 2 No. 03 1302 Coupons promote sales without lowering the price to everyone (that is. Couponing is a form of price discrimination: customers who are willing to track down. Carry around coupons probably have a lower value of time. Most coupons are distributed by mail or in newspaper supplements. (Menasha is principally a paper products manufacturer.). Other firms have tried tear off pads and ad festooned mats. Usually at a price per loaded dispenser or pad (which is expected to last for a week or so). Rivals were free to compete by offering a larger cut or some other inducement. The retailers most attractive to manufacturers are those that have signed exclusive contracts. For then when Nabisco places at shelf dispensers for Oreo cookies it knows that there will not be another dispenser on the adjoining shelf promoting Procter & Gamble's sandwich cookies. Which promise the manufacturers only that there will be no other at shelf coupon dispensers that the retailer had been paid to allow.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3682.man.html">S. CARD & NOVELTY, INC. V. LAWSON MARDON LABEL, INC. (4/7/1998, NO. 96-3682)<BR></A><BR>
Although the license agreement is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3682.man.html">S. CARD & NOVELTY, INC. V. LAWSON MARDON LABEL, INC. (4/7/1998, NO. 96-3682)<BR></A><BR>
Although the license agreement is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972089.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. American is a private security provider doing business in Virginia. 5 the district court concluded that they were entitled to federal immunity under the state action doctrine and the Local Government Antitrust Act. American maintains that such dismissal was erroneous. We are required to accept as true the factual allegations in American's complaint and to construe those facts in the light most favorable to American. The state action doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Parker v. Other courts have held. It is sufficient if the municipality acted pursuant to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * Summary judgment was ap infringement claim since TrafFix of material fact. It cannot intentionally infringed MDI's judgment on this issue is affirme determine damages for the infri motions for summary judgment competition claims. The dis erroneous on the functionality qu summary judgment to TrafFix actions pursued by MDI were th the law. The consensus on this question is that patent and trademark law protect different interests. The trade dress of MDI's WindMaster signs is protectable separately from its patents. MDI's claim of trademark and trade dress infringement is not so outlandish as to appear to be brought only to burden a competitor with litigation. This is especially true given the heretofore unsettled character of trade dress protection for product configurations in this circuit. The district court properly held that MDI's trade dress claim was not an unlawful attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2. There is no reason to have allowed discovery on the market definition issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/00-14763.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. F.C.C. (11/14/2002, NO. 00-14763)<BR></A><BR>
If the parties are unable to agree on the price. The petitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the rate methodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d)<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014763.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the parties are unable to agree on the price. Is as follows: Maximum Rate = (Space Occupied by Attachment ÷ Total Usable Space) × Net Cost of Bare Pole × Carrying Charge Rate 3 1 FCC's Cable Bureau. The petitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the rate methodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d)2 and the FCC's implementation of the rate methodology in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1401 et seq. The petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof. The factual context of this case is difficult to comprehend without an understanding of the economic and legislative climate existing prior to the 1996 Act. As well as the history of Fifth Amendment litigation in the pole attachment The rate for cable television attachments is prescribed in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d). Which states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031675.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 were engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy with medical doctors and medical associations whose purpose was to harm chiropractors. Claiming that Trigon and the medical doctors and associations were engaged in a conspiracy that used Trigon's reimbursement policies and treatment guidelines to limit severely the flow of insurance dollars to chiropractors and steer those monies toward medical doctors. Trigon Healthcare was recently purchased by Anthem Healthcare. Trigon is a for profit. These healthcare benefit plans list the benefits and services covered by Trigon under the plan and describe any services that are excluded from the plan or are the subject of coverage limitations. Trigon creates this network of healthcare providers by entering into contracts with providers who are willing to abide by Trigon's terms and conditions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031845p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2114REHEARINGOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bird and Hestres</SPAN> were on brief. Nez</SPAN> were on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/00-14763.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. F.C.C. (11/14/2002, NO. 00-14763)<BR></A><BR>
If the parties are unable to agree on the price. The petitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the rate methodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 224(d)<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ECFFB4755716A108825713E004E20DC/$file/0415581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15 U.S.C. § 1.1 The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were released by the class action settlement in In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs from re litigating the WalMart courts' determination that Plaintiffs' price fixing claims were properly released. That Plaintiffs' claims are extinguished by the Wal Mart settlement because the two actions share an identical factual predicate. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs here purport to represent all merchants nationwide who currently have a contract with one or more of Visa and MasterCard's member banks for credit and debit transactions. It is necessary to 1 Unless otherwise noted. All statutory references are to 15 U.S.C. 3304 REYN'S PASTA BELLA v. This is how a typical sales transaction works. The 1.6% discount is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-3158.opa.html">RETINA ASSOC. V. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Retina Assoc. v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its dispositive order which is reproduced in the appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This antitrust case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I will be granted. Summary judgment will also be granted on Count II of the complaint.<p> <i>FACTS</i><p> <p> Retina Associates. Is a Florida professional corporation whose shareholders are Dr. Lambrau and Stewart are board certified ophthalmologists who have specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the retina and vitreous. RA's practice is limited to retina related ophthalmology.<p> Defendant Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida. Is a not for profit Florida corporation that owns and operates the Baptist Medical Center. Situated on the Baptist Medical Center campus is a four story building that houses the Baptist Eye Institute (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-6222.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)<BR></A><BR>
If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the <EM>Report and Order</EM> ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-3158.opa.html">RETINA ASSOC. V. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Retina Assoc. v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its dispositive order which is reproduced in the appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This antitrust case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I will be granted. Summary judgment will also be granted on Count II of the complaint.<p> <i>FACTS</i><p> <p> Retina Associates. Is a Florida professional corporation whose shareholders are Dr. Lambrau and Stewart are board certified ophthalmologists who have specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the retina and vitreous. RA's practice is limited to retina related ophthalmology.<p> Defendant Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida. Is a not for profit Florida corporation that owns and operates the Baptist Medical Center. Situated on the Baptist Medical Center campus is a four story building that houses the Baptist Eye Institute (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-6222.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)<BR></A><BR>
If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the <EM>Report and Order</EM> ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$file/0372511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/951799.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that the litigation which plaintiffs allege was objectively baseless was not sham. Hold that the court erred in deciding that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating facts found by a jury in a state court trial when those facts as found did not support a final judgment. Count XV (Virginia Conspiracy Act) since that part of its judgment was essentially based on the same collateral estoppel. I. There being no claim they are erroneous. Summarize the following facts which are pertinent to this appeal. Levine explained repayment would be required when construction was complete. McLeskey and the Levines have had a long standing dislike for each other that predates the current dispute. 1 Plaintiff Levine does not appeal the district court's ruling on her claims for defamation. 2 which was rejected. The circuit court of Virginia Beach granted partial summary judgment to Cohn Phillips on the ground that the lease provision authorizing Marina Shores to terminate for non payment of rent was invalid because it did not require Marina Shores to serve notice to pay or quit and then wait five days before seeking possession. 435 S.E.2d at 13738.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0168p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They were subject to increased prices on one of Wyeth's drugs. Are the named representatives of a certified class of pharmaceutical wholesalers and retailers that purchased Premarin. The class and individual appellants have adopted each other's briefs in their entirety. A brand name prescription conjugated estrogen replacement medication.1 Premarin is a form of estrogen replacement therapy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-1425a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Grambow were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Harrington were on the brief. Was on the brief for intervenor Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General Jeffrey W. Sarles was on the brief for amicus curiae Ameritech Corporation. Glover were on the brief for intervenors Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies and Bell Atlantic Communications. It is a combination of local telephone companies that AT&T was required to divest pursuant to the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ). 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).2 Divestiture was called for. Because it was thought
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lvarez</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. 13. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4292.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even if the drug is unpatented. 21 U.S.C. §355. Bristol Myers Squibb was first to market with paclitaxel. The exclusivity period was due to 2 No. 03 4292 expire in July 1997. Then the Food and Drug Administration will not approve an ANDA unless the applicant certifies that it believes the patent to be invalid or not infringed by the generic compound. Then the FDA will proceed unless the original maker files a patent infringement suit within 45 days. Whichever is earlier. Shortly before its exclusivity was to end. Courts ultimately determined that all important claims of both patents are invalid. Just before the 30 month deferral was to expire. Which wants Congress to amend the statute so that a maximum of one is available. The FTC observed that Taxol is one of eight drugs covered by sequential 30 month deferrals as a result No. 03 4292 3 of delayed patent listings in the Orange Book and that every patent listed for any of these eight had been declared invalid or not infringed. Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration 48 56 (2002) (the report's reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2061.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is about the attempt of a copyright owner to use copyright law to block access to data that not only are neither copyrightable nor copyrighted. Were not created or obtained by the copyright owner. The owner is trying to secrete the data in its copyrighted program a program the existence of which reduced the likelihood that the data would be retained in a form in which they would have been readily accessible. It was not addressed either by the district court or by the parties in their submissions in this court. The copyright is of a compilation. The general issue that the appeal presents is the right of the owner of such a copyright to prevent his customers (that is. The copyright licensees) from disclosing the compiled data even if the data are in the public domain. So forth from the southeastern Wisconsin municipalities in which the properties are located. Ordinarily they're happy to provide the data to anyone who will pay the modest cost of copying the data onto a disk. Which is applicable to data in digital form.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 the reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1132.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Qwest Corporation asks us to determine whether it was obligated to seek state utility commission approval of a contract in which it agreed to provide MCImetro Access Transmission Services. A former subsidiary of AT&T which was divested pursuant to a consent decree between AT&T and the United States government. Qwest is known as a Bell operating company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-4007.htm">97-4007 -- UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS CO. V. UPJOHN CO. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
Found that the competitor was able to offer the product to Utah Foam at a lower price than that charged by Upjohn. <p> In July. Because PAPI 135 was not of like grade and quality to PAPI 27. Thus they were irrelevant to Utah Foam's claims. We held that they were barred from doing so under <u>Donovan</u>. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u><strong> </strong>In short. The well established rule is that acceptance of remittitur of damages effectively waives the right to appeal any issue pertaining to the causes of action covered by the remittitur offer. <u>See</u> <u>Denholm</u>. 322 (5th Cir. 1985) (because punitive damages and compensatory damages based upon same cause of action are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1004EC107EC8531788256C44007C163E/$file/0017055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an action alleging breach of a fiduciary responsibility insurance policy arising out of an insurance company's refusal to defend its insured against a third party claim. At issue is whether the Winncrest action involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty that triggers Federal's obligation to defend under California law. Procedural History PTF is an employee benefit trust that has a fiduciary responsibility insurance policy with Federal. (2) whether Federal was prejudiced by any late tender of the claim. Summary judgment was ultimately granted to Federal because the court found that the Winncrest action did not proximately result from a breach of fiduciary duty. It is necessary to understand the complex factual scenario alleged by Winncrest. Federal does not have standing to maintain its cross appeal. The district court found that Federal did not have a duty to defend PTF in the Winncrest action. Federal was not the aggrieved party in this judgment. A party who receives all that he has sought generally is not aggrieved by the judgment affording the relief and cannot appeal from it.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the brief were David W. BellSouth says s 274 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled 1 The order under challenge is Implementation of the Telecom munications Act of 1996: Telemessaging. BellSouth's challenge to the order is entirely derivative of its constitutional challenge to the statute. Although electronic publishing restrictions have usually amounted to little more than a subplot. In 1982 a consent decree was entered in settlement of the govern ment's 1974 antitrust suit against AT&T. The twenty BOCs eventually named in the 1996 Act were spun off from AT&T and grouped into seven regional Bell operating companies. Of which BellSouth is one.2 The MFJ initially prohibited the BOCs from providing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/97-8320.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ENGELHARD CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Holds approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the GQA market.<p> Attapulgite is a form of clay found throughout the world. In the United States it is found only along the Georgia Florida border. There are two forms of attapulgite. Has absorbent qualities and is used in products designed to absorb liquids. Is used as a thickening and suspension agent in a variety of industrial products. The relevant inquiry is whether there are substitutes to which a customer would switch in response to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1538a.html">AT&T V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Mark E. Seiver were on the briefs for intervenors Prism </P> <P>Communication Services. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Randal S. Feinberg were on </P> <P>the brief for intervenor Public Service Commission of the </P> <P>State of New York.</P> <P> Before: Randolph. The FCC's approval of Bell </P> <P>Atlantic's application was the first time since the 1982 break </P> <P>up of AT&. The BOCs continued to have a </P> <P>monopoly in local phone service in their respective service </P> <P>areas. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978320.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attapulgite is a form of clay found throughout the world. In the United States it is found only along the Georgia Florida border. There are two forms of attapulgite. Has absorbent qualities and is used in products designed to absorb liquids. Is used as a thickening and suspension agent in a variety of industrial products. The relevant inquiry is whether there are substitutes to which a customer would switch in response to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2244.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was tried to a jury. Local housing authorities that want grants from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development have to complete forms prescribed by HUD. There is more. Decisions have to be made regarding choice and size of font. These decisions were made by Bucklew. The ones we have named all involve the appearance of the forms. Software that is read only by the computer and not by its Nos. 02 2244. 02 2299 3 human user is also copyrightable. It is unexplained what he means by this or whether it has been infringed. The trial focused on one of the four forms (as the parties refer to the conversion of a prescribed HUD form into an electronic form that computes and displays the arithmetic manipulations that HUD requires) copyrighted by Bucklew that he claimed were copied by HAB. This form is a transformation of HUD form 52566. Some similarities between a copyrighted work and a work alleged to infringe it are consistent with an inference of independent creation. In that case evidence that the alleged infringer had access to (that is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978320.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attapulgite is a form of clay found throughout the world. In the United States it is found only along the Georgia Florida border. There are two forms of attapulgite. Has absorbent qualities and is used in products designed to absorb liquids. Is used as a thickening and suspension agent in a variety of industrial products. The 2 relevant inquiry is whether there are substitutes to which a customer would switch in response to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/97-8320.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ENGELHARD CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Holds approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the GQA market.<p> Attapulgite is a form of clay found throughout the world. In the United States it is found only along the Georgia Florida border. There are two forms of attapulgite. Has absorbent qualities and is used in products designed to absorb liquids. Is used as a thickening and suspension agent in a variety of industrial products. The relevant inquiry is whether there are substitutes to which a customer would switch in response to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4558CF875AD93D4B88256E5A00707AD0/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright §§ 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/022462P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) following a jury verdict. The majority of heavy duty trucks sold by dealers are manufactured only after a retail customer has solicited and accepted bids from several dealers. This is an industry wide practice. The crux of this case is Reeder's claim that Volvo gave other dealers more favorable price concessions than Volvo granted Reeder. The remaining claims the secondaryline RPA and AFPA claims were tried to a jury. Was the conference's keynote speaker. The featured guest speaker of the 1998 conference was Jon Krakauer. As well as 3 mistakenly receiving faxes from Volvo intended for other dealers which listed larger concessions than Reeder was getting. Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate. While Reeder's price per truck was $63. It would have realized a gross profit of $30. The price Reeder's customer paid for each truck was $2. Reeder would have realized $52. Reeder would have realized additional profits for its sale.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/00-1012a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs in 00 1012 were Mark L. With him on the briefs in 00 1015 were Mark L. With him on the brief in 00 1012 were Charles A. With him on the briefs in 00 1015 were Charles A. With him on the brief in 00 1012 were David W. With him on the brief in 00 1015 were Peter D. S 251 of the Act requires that ILECs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982987P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held as a matter of law that MidAmerican was immune from federal antitrust liability under the state action immunity doctrine. (2) the regulatory policy is actively supervised by the state. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed R. MidAmerican is the largest electric utility in Iowa. Which is located in the area designated under Iowa Code §§ 476.22 .26 (1997) as the exclusive electric service territory of MidAmerican. Is sold by MidAmerican under its own
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1209a.html">CF INDUSTRIES, INC V. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD<BR></A><BR>
Inc. and Farmland Industries.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1012a.html">UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
00 1015.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-4203.htm">99-4203 -- MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 06/20/2000<BR></A><BR>
Telephone service as a whole was viewed as a natural monopoly which needed to be regulated for the benefit of all users.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CCAA9E2E2A0A50988256E5A00707A45/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A17BB3944F3170788256A23005B515C/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright §§ 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69A4AA15F8D6CBD6882569F1005E7D93/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/99-1538a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Mark E. Seiver were on the briefs for intervenors Prism Communication Services. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Randal S. Feinberg were on the brief for intervenor Public Service Commission of the State of New York. The FCC's approval of Bell Atlantic's application was the first time since the 1982 break up of AT&T that a Bell operating company received regulato ry permission to offer long distance service in a state where it provides local telephone service. The BOCs continued to have a monopoly in local phone service in their respective service areas. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-1209a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frederic L. With him on the briefs were Samuel M. With him on the brief were Ellen D. Donovan were on the brief for intervenors CF Industries. Franklin were on the brief for intervenor Koch Pipeline Company L.P. I Anhydrous ammonia is a hazardous compound of nitrogen and hydrogen that is used both to manufacture fertilizers and as a direct fertilizer application. A significant amount of the compound is produced in Louisiana. Demand is seasonal. The terminals are rapidly emptied through deliveries to local retailers. If the Board determines that they are not. ] ... the need for revenues that are sufficient. CF Industries and Farmland Industries are farmer owned cooperatives that produce anhydrous ammonia in Louisiana and ship it to the Midwest via Koch's pipeline. Farmland's production facili ties are not located near a river and thus have no barge access. Alleging that Koch's rate increases were unreasonable.1 Four months later. Two parts of that order are important here. It also held that CF was estopped from challenging pre increase rates based on a settlement agree ment CF had signed with Koch's predecessor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61C1B2A2DDACE1E88256E5A00707A56/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/998C4FAC8B2B2708882569F1005FA015/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6219.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court's decision to stay the case was not a final or immediately appealable decision. The appeal is dismissed. <hr>II. BACKGROUND Southwestern Bell is a local exchange carrier offering telephone services in Oklahoma. It was also the sole provider of payphones in its operating area. Plaintiffs are independent payphone providers that subsequently began operating in competition with Southwestern Bell. Among the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint are assertions that Southwestern Bell abused its control of telephone access lines to discriminate against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Bell was able to unfairly retain its monopoly in the Oklahoma payphone market. Southwestern Bell argued that the subject matter of the complaint was pervasively regulated by FCC rules promulgated under the authority of the Telecommunications Act and that the FCC had procedures in place to provide relief for the issues raised in the complaint. Which authorizes this court to permit an appeal from an interlocutory order certified under that section as long as application is made by the appealing party within ten days after entry of the order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199710/96-1253b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Franklin were on the briefs. Lobner were on the briefs. Were on the brief. I. Airports are required by statute to charge aeronautical users reasonable fees.1 Section 511 of the Airports and Airways Improvements Act. Requires an airport that accepts federal grant money (or land) to assure that the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimina tion. Or guidelines establishing ... the standards or guidelines that shall be used by the Secretary in determining under this section whether an airport fee is reasonable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-1098a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Wallace Edward Brand was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Prisco were on the brief for intervenor Central Louisiana Electric Company. Where there is a competitive market. The Commission approves appli cations to sell electric energy at market based rates only if the seller and its affiliates do not have. Or adequately have mitigated. Arguing that CLECO does in fact have market 1 FERC defines market power as a seller's ability to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1126.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief. Perkins Thompson Hinckley & Keddy were on brief. Plaintiff appellants are parents of school age children who attend schools that have entered into exclusive contracts with MacLean Stevens Studios. Defendant appellees are MacLean Stevens Studios. BACKGROUND The facts necessary to decide this case are not in dispute and were aptly summarized by the district court. Inc. is a New Hampshire corporation that offers student portrait services in several New England states. Appellants are parents of school age children who attend schools that have entered into exclusive contracts with MacLean Stevens. These contracts provide that the school will receive a commission of twenty percent (20%) of the price of the portrait packages sold and designate MacLean Stevens as the exclusive provider of portraits on school property. The school portraits purchased by appellants are priced according to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412137.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Henry Lee Pickett is the owner of a cattle producing farm located thirty five miles south of Montgomery. In this class action lawsuit he is the lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers who sell their fed cattle cows raised specifically for slaughter to meat packing plants exclusively on the cash market. Is the largest meat packing company in the United States. Are best understood after a discussion of the cattle and meat packing industries and the market where they meet. I.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054164p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the order of August 12. The Parties ASTM is a Pennsylvania non profit corporation whose mission is to provide a forum for volunteer technical experts to 2 develop and publish standards for materials. These committees are broken down further into 2. Has a six member Executive Committee that acts on its behalf when the full Board is not in session. Defendant Corrpro is in the business of providing corrosion control and cathodic protection (i.e. Defendant Baach was the Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Corrpro. Defendant WRA is primarily in the business of providing mathematical and statistical consulting services. Rogers was President of WRA. Rogers was a member of Corrpro's Board of Directors from sometime in the mid 1990s until 2001 or 2002. Guidelines do not prohibit an individual from participating in a standard setting activity by reason of his association with or employment by a company with a financial interest in the technical standard on which he is working. Under ASTM Bylaw No. 10.1: 3 Any person who was or is a party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1187p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It seeks to have the County's flow control plan declared unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania was no exception. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs. Most waste disposal facilities were privately owned and operated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brilliance is in the business of producing and selling audiobooks. The two editions are packaged and marketed differently. It is unclear how. Audio Adventures LLC (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952887P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CUSTOMER USES A COPY CARTRIDGE OTHER THAN AN UNMODIFIED NEW OR RECYCLED CARTRIDGE PURCHASED FROM XEROX AND/OR THE COPY CARTRIDGE BEING USED IS MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION. THIS WARRANTY WILL BE VOID. The Xerox Service Representative will attempt to diagnose and solve the problem on the telephone. IF THE CUSTOMER IS USING A CARTRIDGE THAT RESULTS IN A VOIDED WARRANTY AND A XEROX REPRESENTATIVE TRAVELS TO THE INSTALLATION ADDRESS TO PERFORM WARRANTY SERVICE. THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE WILL ADVISE CUSTOMER THE WARRANTY IS VOID. SUCH SERVICE CALL WILL BE BILLED TO CUSTOMER AT XEROX' THEN APPLICABLE TIME AND MATERIALS RATES. CUSTOMER MAY INITIATE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITHOUT CARTRIDGE COVERAGE. 2 Xerox will service its copiers that are not under warranty. Service is available on a time and materials basis. Xerox also offers a maintenance agreement which requires that Parts are included in that charge. Lasertech is an Arkansas proprietorship owned by David Marts. addition to servicing photocopiers and computer printers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/01-7115c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ratner were on brief. Moses Silverman and Mark Riera were on brief. Were on brief. Horowitz were on brief for amicus curiae Government of Canada in support of the appellees. Ernest Gellhorn was on brief for amici curiae Federal Republic of Germany et al. in support of the appellees. III were on brief for amicus curiae United States Council for International Business in support of the appellee. Is 1 3 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). Reasonably foreseeable effect (A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations. Then sections 1 to 7 of this title shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States. 15 U.S.C. § 6a. 4 plaintiffs who are injured solely by that conduct's effect on foreign commerce.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/438A15F8D0B3D6A588256B2E0062BA06/$file/9956761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. The following statement of facts is taken in part from this court's decision in Lucas Auto. Vintage tires are different from tires used on modern automobiles in terms of their size. Vintage tires are characterized by an appearance that is authentic to a varying degree to the tires which were originally sold on vintage. Are available through specialty tire channels of distribution. The Lucas I court accepted the district court's assumption that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/563ADBC938B3CF4288256E5A00707DA5/$file/9956761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. The following statement of facts is taken in part from this court's decision in Lucas Auto. Vintage tires are different from tires used on modern automobiles in terms of their size. Vintage tires are characterized by an appearance that is authentic to a varying degree to the tires which were originally sold on vintage. Are available through specialty tire channels of distribution. The Lucas I court accepted the district court's assumption that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-1019a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Daniel M. With him on the briefs were Peter D. Were on the briefs for intervenor United States of America. McKenna were on the brief for intervenor U S WEST. Muench were on the brief for intervenor Ameritech Corporation. Bell South claimed that s 274 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled out by name. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and. Contesting both the FCC's finding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). It is a rational and nonpunitive congressional enactment that serves to open tele communications markets. Which it was surely free to do. We also find that the FCC was correct in concluding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). Because BellSouth has failed to demon strate that no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962385.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Defendants removed both suits on the basis that Soth's state law claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-2166.htm">01-2166 -- MOONGATE WATER CO. V. BUTTERFIELD PARK MUTUAL DOMESTIC WATER ASSOCIATION - - 06/03/2002<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Butterfield Park is a non profit association incorporated in 1969 under New Mexico law. A property which was sold in 1999 to Ms. That protection was afforded by a provision of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Butterfield's notes were then transferred to the Community Property Trust No. 1987A. GMAC Financial Services (GMAC) was substituted as agent for the Trustee. 1926(b)'s monopoly protection is unavailable to Butterfield. It alleged Butterfield's FmHA indebtedness did not transfer to assignees of the notes and Butterfield was not serving Ms. Have a continuing indebtedness to the FmHA. Have provided or made available service to the disputed area. The district court concluded Butterfield is entitled to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974284P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
National Parcel Service is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614726.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is the proper test for determining whether a party has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. There are approximately 11. Appellant Phoenix is a licensed Burger King franchisee that owns and operates a Burger King franchise in Fort Lauderdale. There are approximately 30. Sitting by designation. 2 * and Burger King have employed a variety of marketing and promotional strategies to attract customers. While the games were still underway. 3 the FBI informed McDonald's that there were problems with the random distribution of its game pieces. Approximately 50 other persons either pleaded guilty or were convicted in connection with the conspiracy. McDonald's promotional games were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0391p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 99a0391p.06 the reciprocity principle in order to further their self interest which is regarded as arising from heavy regulation through marketing orders controlling price. The effort by the Department of Agriculture to force payments from plaintiff for advertising is invalid under the First Amendment. The portions of the Mushroom Act of 1990 which authorize such coerced payments for advertising are likewise unconstitutional. The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The Mushroom Act states: It is declared to be the policy of congress that it is in the public interest to authorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing through adequate assessments on mushrooms produced domestically or imported into the United States. The conjunction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0189n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Lapkin and Reed are cardiothoracic surgeons. After the suit was filed in April 2001. Their explanation for conducting so little discovery up to that point was that Reed and Lapkin's financial situation had prohibited counsel from taking additional depositions. Counsel did not show that Appellants' finances had improved to the extent that discovery was now feasible. Suggesting that depositions were likely to be less trustworthy than forcing the witnesses to testify in court. The only issue before us on appeal is the denial of the Rule 56(f) motion. II Denial of a Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 280 F.3d at 628 (evidence sought was duplicative of evidence already in the record). 1149 50 (6th Cir. 1996) (reversing summary judgment and remanding medical malpractice case for further discovery because party set forth in affidavit precisely what discovery was needed and why it was important to its case). Including but not limited to: (1) when the appellant learned of the issue that is the subject of the desired discovery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1763.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. with whom Sue Zanne Worrell and Peabody & Brown were on brief for appellant. Kelly & Murphy were on joint brief for appellees. *Of the District of New Hampshire. This is an appeal from a nineteen day jury trial. Elgabri is an otolaryngologist practicing in Rhode Island. Otolaryngology is commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3365_033.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Del Monte took the position that this coverage was triggered by a series of class actions filed against it in 2004. The plaintiffs claimed that they were injured by Del Monte's alleged monopoly in the extrasweet pineapple market. I This is a diversity action. So we begin by noting that Transportation is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. While the states of incorporation of the six plaintiffs are California. All six have their principal places of business in Florida. The amount in controversy is substantially in excess of the $75. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002262.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1162p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have moved to dissolve three consent judgments enforcing orders of the National Labor Relations Board and to vacate four consent contempt adjudications for violating the consent judgments. We will deny the motion for the reasons that follow. Some indication of the background of the order can be gleaned from the Board's Findings of Fact that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tires at Pottstown. An object thereof is forcing or requiring . . . any . . . person . . . to cease doing business with . . . any other person. This court was again presented with a Decision and Order of the NLRB reflecting a settlement stipulation and a consent judgment. Specifically prohibited was any action encouraging employees of Gulf. BCTC stipulated that it was in civil contempt of the judgments entered March 4. The NLRB once again found itself faced with charges that BCTC was responsible for secondary boycotts. The General Counsel took the position before the Board
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012113.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 19
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/991803.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have brought this RICO class action on behalf of all individuals who played NHL professional hockey during the time in which defendant R. Count II of the complaint alleges that Eagleson and certain companies with which he was affiliated conspired to pilfer NHLPA funds over the course of many years. The principal issue on this appeal is whether the district court correctly granted Eagleson and the NHL defendants summary judgment on Count I on statute of limitations grounds. Thus is not at issue on appeal. We nevertheless have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Alan Eagleson was executive director of the NHLPA. Which would otherwise have been prohibited by the players' contracts. The participation of the best NHL players was essential to the success of the tournaments. Hockey Canada was to be paid the first $600. All other net revenues were to be split equally between the NHL clubs and the NHLPA. The NHL players earned little additional pay for playing in the tournaments and were induced to participate on the understanding that they would be benefitting their pension fund.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. judgment of the district court. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement also specifically provided: That the Concession granted by this Agreement is not exclusive and Lessor shall have the right to deal with and perfect arrangements with any other individual company or corporation for engaging in like activity at the Airport. The larger companies paid a much smaller We AFFIRM the 2 percentage of sales in concession fees than the smaller companies because the concession fee was based on the number of deplaning passengers without regard to the sales or other indicia of market strength of each rental car company. companies. Changes were never made and the dispute continued. The state court action was removed to federal court at Dollar's request. The two actions were consolidated. The district court found Dollar failed to Dollar asserted this discrepancy was unfair. Is unfair. COMMERCE CLAUSE Dollar contends the rental fees for the counter space and parking spaces should be considered separately from the concession fees that are based on the number of deplaning passengers. as counter space and parking Although Dollar concedes the Commission is a market participant when it provides concession areas such 2 The Dollar In addition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/94-1035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Frederick Beckner III were on the brief for intervenor Time Warner Entertainment Co. The first type is horizontal. Addressing operators' scale:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/810E1F7AEC93AD6D88256ED0007C4BA3/$file/0216751.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the general methodology chosen by the CPUC to calculate a common cost markup was appropriate. The CPUC improperly implemented the methodology by attributing some common costs to wholesale operations that should have been attributed to retail operations. The provision of local telephone service was thought for many years to be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3552_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the local phone companies that were spun off from the old AT&T to supply services that will 2 Nos. 05 3552 & 05 3677 enable new entrants to compete in the business. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 54. It is conventional to call the established phone companies incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). This is an unusual sense of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0048p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) Moog is liable for TSS's breach of contract under a veil piercing theory. (3) Moog is liable for tortious interference with the contract between TSS and SKI. This is an action in diversity. The breach of contract claim is governed by Japanese law. The other claims are governed by Michigan law. All three companies were involved in the business of servo valves. A servo valve is an electro hydraulically controlled mechanism used in such products as flight simulators. Moog is a large international distributor of servo valves. Moog servo valves were a substitute for TSS servo valves. Moog learned that SKI was TSS's largest foreign customer. Which were renewed automatically unless the other party gave notice to the contrary. The Agreement was dated February 8. Inc is the parent of a wholly owned subsidiary. Which is incorporated in Japan. Inc. and Moog Japan are collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982238.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because disputed facts remain as to whether the seller's prices were the result of a good faith attempt to meet a competitor's prices. I. Hoover Color Corporation is one of several primary distributors of Bayferrox. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce. Where such commodities are sold for use. Only if Bayer did not match the price within 14 days did Rockwood have the option of purchasing from the alternate producer. The prices paid by each distributor were based on the volume purchased the previous year. The lower prices offered to its larger competitors were not functionally available to it even if the same prices were theoretically available to all distributors. Bayer was building a large manufacturing plant 3 in New Martinsville. Section 2(b) provides: [N]othing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After finding that both sets of plaintiffs have standing. We hold that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1568.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Keith H. Of counsel was Catherine L. Jackson may not collaterally challenge the district court's previous judgment that he is entitled to only $2.65 million rather than $12 million in damages for the manufacture. Which was affirmed in a previous appeal. Jackson is not entitled to a second trial as a matter of right simply because the district court stayed his counterclaims of indirect infringement. Jackson argued that the jury's damages award was reasonable based on the evidence that he adduced at trial showing the benefits Glenayre's customers enjoyed by infringing the '900 patent. Or conveying
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5487-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some have said. Is an engine of technological development. The telephonic system at dispute in this appeal is an example of that phenomenon it was designed and implemented to ensure that consumers paid charges for accessing pornography and other adult entertainment. The system identified the user of an online adult entertainment service by the telephone line used to access that service and then billed the telephone line subscriber 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 for the cost of that service as if it was a charge for an international phone call to Madagascar. It had a problem as well: It was possible for someone to access an adult entertainment service over a telephone line without authorization from the telephone line subscriber who understood herself contractually bound to pay all telephone charges. If the computer was connected by modem to a telephone line. Charges for accessing the adult entertainment appeared on bills sent to the consumers whose telephone lines were used. This billing system did not have a mechanism to ensure that a telephone line subscriber authorized the computer user to access a given adult entertainment service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1475.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellees have moved for summary affirmance. The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity the facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount. The entire purchase price of the computer was only $2. Damages for mental pain and suffering and punitive damages are not recoverable on these facts. Day has failed to plead facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that his claims involve less than $50. Federal Question Jurisdiction Defendant's motion to dismiss was pursuant to both Fed. Day argues on appeal that the adequacy of the jurisdictional amount is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1035a.html">TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for </P> <P>petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold </P> <P>Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 12. Kandutsch and Verrill & Dana were on brief for Ford Motor Company. Murray and Law Offices of Peter Murray were on brief for Acadia Motors. Or adjustments are made free of charge to the consumer. The Dealers are required under their Agreements 3 with Ford to perform labor and to provide parts in satisfaction of the warranties. Ford is obligated both under the Agreements and under Maine statute to reimburse the Dealers for parts used and warranty work performed. Each dealer is eligible to be reimbursed at wholesale cost. 1176 was amended to require manufacturers to reimburse dealers at retail equivalent rates. The surcharge was imposed based on the number of cars sold. Alleging that the surcharge was unlawful. Was calculated to recoup Ford's increased costs of doing business over time. The warranty reimbursement level and the surcharge were lawful.3 The Dealers also moved for partial summary judgment. They argued that any price increase to recover the reimbursement rate required by 1176 was itself a violation of the statute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1087a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Donna N. On the brief were Thomas O. With him on the briefs were Michael K. Broadband internet service is becoming available. Two of the most widespread methods of delivering broadband service are digital subscriber line (DSL). Are steadily gaining ground. Persuaded that the agency's interpretation and application of the statutory scheme are permissible. These particular obligations are independent of any unbundling required by § 251.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1285.html">SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., ET AL. V. APOTEX CORP., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Hugh L. Nelson</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Apotex s prod
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1444.html">KENDALL CO. V. PROGRESSIVE MEDICAL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1182.html">ENGEL IND. V. THE LOCKFORMER CO.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011647P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Appellants are branch dealers. Under state law the relationship between branchmen and the publisher is not merely one of contract terminable at will. Branchmen have a property right in their branches that allows them to convey or sell their interest.3 Miskimen v. Appellants are fourteen of the more than thirty branch dealers in the St. Apparently because they believed that their potential causes of action against Pulitzer were worth more than the discounts and allowances available under the settlement 5 and because they remained concerned that their property interest in their branches would be threatened under the terms of the agreement. Although three years have passed since the execution of the agreements with the favored branch dealers. These claims are currently pending in state court. Missouri. 35 4 the branch dealers who had signed the agreement.6 In the proceedings that have followed. Appellants have argued that the favorable rates were not and are not available to them on equal terms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981557P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The ASA was organized in 1968 as a non profit corporation for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1087.html">DUNCAN MCCOY V. MITSUBOSHI<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022497p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an approximately two minute segment of a movie. Video Pipeline challenges the injunction on the ground that its internet use of the clip previews is protected by the fair use doctrine and. Inc. and Miramax Film Corp.1 may not receive the benefits of copyright protection because they have engaged in copyright misuse. The requested trailer is then
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FC68213410F1189882571DB005A0F82/$file/0171051ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/91-1125.html">KING INSTRUMENTS V. PEREGO AND TAPEMATIC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Davises argue that the district court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing to pursue their claims because their rights were not within the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/01-1076a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Mark C. With him on the brief were Daniel M. With him on the brief were Michael K. Burdin were on the brief for intervenor Kansas Corporation Commis sion. Burkett was on the brief for amicus curiae Oklahoma Corporation Commission in support of appellee. A * Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. provider of local service in Kansas and Oklahoma. The full regulatory context of a s 271 application is set forth comprehensively in our decision affirming the FCC's approval of Bell Atlantic's s 271 application for New York. The Commission then has 90 days to decide whether the BOC has shown that it is in compliance with the statutory prereq uisites. Showing that it is ready and willing to provide its competitors with network access and interconnectivity under terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Davises argue that the district <p>court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing <p>to pursue their claims because their rights were not within <p>the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A834291C04DDDBA7882572F2007B2FA2/$file/0476131.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is required to allow anyone to transmit power over these lines. DWR is the state agency responsible for the control and management of much of California's water supply. DWR is considered a third party generator. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) over this petition for review of an order issued by FERC. We deny DWR's petition for review because its various claims of error are unfounded. FERC's decision to categorize the facilities as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1796515EB13DA42882571BD007FC846/$file/0171051.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. While the case was being prepared for trial. The Dealers' appeal is No. 05 14543. Westgate's appeal is No. 05 15152. This is the second time the Dealers' breach of contract claims against Ford have been before this court. On the Dealers' petition for a writ of The petition for writ of mandamus is No. 05 14254. We have consolidated this petition with the appeals designated in note 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0435p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INTRODUCTION The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1692.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wainwright & Wainwright were on brief. Smith & Cohen were on brief. Is this: Can a Massachusetts based court. Assert jurisdiction over a California resident who is alleged to have made a defamatory comment during an unsolicited telephone interview with a staff reporter for a Massachusetts newspaper? Alioto is an attorney practicing in California. Alioto is pressing a class action in the California courts against Ticketmaster Southern California. Is affiliated with Ticketmaster New York. Both Ticketmaster entities are engaged in the business of selling ducats to entertainment events. The record is equally barren of any showing that Alioto solicited the inquiry2 or that more than one call occurred. It is clear. Who was in California. At no point does the article refer by name to either T NY or T SC. 2Although there is a passing allusion in the record to a press release issued by Alioto regarding the lawsuit against T SC. There is no indication that he forwarded this release to Massachusetts or that it sparked the Globe's story. 3 gouging in New York and California.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981149P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants are 17 of the roughly 37 branch dealers in the St. 14 are based in Missouri. The branch dealers have historically recognized these service areas as being exclusive territories and appear to respect the historic boundaries between service areas.2 As filed with the district court. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce. . . . and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen Pulitzer asserts that while this exclusivity is not contractually mandated. The branch dealers operate as though the service areas are exclusive. We think that it is fair to say that appellants have conceded this point. We have found nothing in their briefs or other papers indicating that appellants disagree with Pulitzer's characterization. The competitive relationship issue is so intermeshed with the merits that it should be resolved only after a full trial. The court concluded that such a relationship was a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Act. Our review of the district court's fact findings is governed by the principles laid out in Osborn v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/99-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2151.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
\ the distinction drawn is between
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4125.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Against John Deep and corporations that are controlled by him and need not be discussed separately. Claim that Deep's
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- End of real page content -->
<!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer -->
<P></P>
<!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer -->
<!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="footerNav">
<div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know -->
<ul>
<li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li>
<li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li>
<li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li>
</ul>
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ridiculous div -->
</div><!-- close footerNav -->
</div><!-- close footer -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) -->
<!-- end of included footer -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!-- end of HTML -->
<!-- code from here on down -->
<!-- input arguments are:
a query (optional)
-->
<!-- to begin with...
This init block sets up and runs the query.
-->
<!-- select correct options based on scope -->
|
