skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query antitrust or monopoly returned 2098 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 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.
1000 U.S. V. MICROSOFT

Holley argued the causes for appellant.
952 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 (
916 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
902 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 (
899 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).
893 OPINION/ORDER
Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (
886 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 (
880 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
817 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 (

816 OPINION/ORDER
As follows: On page 9 the designation for the footnote is corrected. Line 8 the word
814 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.

812 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
809 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 4495. Replace the sentence beginning
809 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 (
808 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
806 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.
783 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
783 OPINION/ORDER
The first class is composed of
771 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.
769 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

756 OPINION/ORDER
Lay
751 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
747 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
741 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. (
736 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
735 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 (
730 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.
730 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.
725 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.
718 OPINION/ORDER
715 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
709 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the decision of the district court. 1. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
706 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.
706 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.
703 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
703 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
699 98-1026 -- FULL DRAW PRODUCTIONS V. EASTON SPORTS INC. -- 06/29/1999

Who are archery manufacturers and distributors. We reverse and remand.

693 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 (
688 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
687 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.
686 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
680 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.
680 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 (
677 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.
677 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.
662 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
662 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 ".
662 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
660 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
657 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 (
657 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 (
653 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
652 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
651 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) (
648 OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
647 OPINION/ORDER
Berthelsen were on brief for appellants.

647 OPINION/ORDER
Berthelsen were on brief for appellants.

647 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

643 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
643 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="643"></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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1009.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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="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://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="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://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="623"></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="623"></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="621"></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="621"></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="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="616"></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="614"></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/$file/0156447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published at 343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) is amended as follows: Footnote 4 appearing on page 1013 is deleted and replaced by new footnote 4. Which reads as follows: Nor is it (1) Hairston v. 101 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1996) (where antitrust standing was questionable and where the plaintiffs failed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Morris is a media company that publishes print and electronic newspapers. PGA is the sponsor of a series of professional golf tournaments throughout North America known as the PGA Tour. RTSS is an elaborate electronic relay scoring system that relies on state of the art computer technology and equipment as well as dozens of trained workers and volunteers. 2 RTSS works as follows. The scores are then collected by other volunteers. The scores of all participating golfers are then processed at the remote production truck and transmitted to PGA's website. Which are scores that are transmitted electronically nearly contemporaneously to their actual occurrence on the golf course. The compiled scores are also transmitted to an on site media center where members of the media are able to access the scores. The same information is also transmitted to various electronic leaderboards located throughout the golf course. The 3 only source of compiled golf scores for all tournament players is RTSS. The only physical location at which to obtain compiled golf scores is the media center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB8399534AEFABA188256D9B0079C65A/$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="601"></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="598"></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="598"></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="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="596"></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.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.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.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="583"></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="576"></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="576"></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="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="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="563"></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="562"></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="562"></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="560"></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.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="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="553"></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="553"></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="553"></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="547"></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="542"></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="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="540"></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="540"></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="536"></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="535"></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="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="533"></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="533"></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="526"></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="524"></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="524"></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="524"></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="524"></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://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="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="515"></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="511"></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="511"></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="504"></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="504"></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="504"></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="502"></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="499"></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="497"></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="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="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="490"></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="490"></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="488"></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="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="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.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="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.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="466"></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="466"></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="463"></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="463"></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="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.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="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="454"></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="454"></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="452"></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="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://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="450"></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="448"></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="448"></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="448"></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="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="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="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="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.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="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="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.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.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="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="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="425"></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="425"></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.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://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="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="423"></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="423"></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="419"></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="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="412"></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="410"></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="410"></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="407"></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="407"></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-4.gif" ALT="401"></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/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="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="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="387"></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="387"></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="387"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="380"></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="372"></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="372"></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="372"></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="372"></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="365"></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="365"></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="365"></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="365"></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="365"></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="365"></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="365"></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="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="356"></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="356"></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="356"></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="354"></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="354"></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="354"></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="354"></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="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="340"></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="335"></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="335"></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.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.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.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.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="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ECFFB4755716A108825713E004E20DC/$file/0415581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 15 U.S.C. § 1.1 The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were released by the class action settlement in In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs from re litigating the WalMart courts' determination that Plaintiffs' price fixing claims were properly released. That Plaintiffs' claims are extinguished by the Wal Mart settlement because the two actions share an identical factual predicate. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs here purport to represent all merchants nationwide who currently have a contract with one or more of Visa and MasterCard's member banks for credit and debit transactions. It is necessary to 1 Unless otherwise noted. All statutory references are to 15 U.S.C. 3304 REYN'S PASTA BELLA v. This is how a typical sales transaction works. The 1.6% discount is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$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="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//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/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="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="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="302"></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="302"></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="302"></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-3.gif" ALT="302"></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="302"></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="302"></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-2.gif" ALT="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="295"></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="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.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/8CCAA9E2E2A0A50988256E5A00707A45/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69A4AA15F8D6CBD6882569F1005E7D93/$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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/998C4FAC8B2B2708882569F1005FA015/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61C1B2A2DDACE1E88256E5A00707A56/$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/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://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.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://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://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.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://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="277"></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="277"></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="277"></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="277"></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="277"></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="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6153_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="257"></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="246"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972314.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Marlinton and Central Market are two grocery stores located in southeastern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia. He stated 3 that these meetings were in person. We recognized that on remand the district court would have to resolve the question of whether Marlinton had antitrust standing. Flav O Rich and Valley of Virginia were joint venture partners of Valley Rich. 3 See Supermarket of Marlinton. Arguing that the action was both time barred and that Marlinton lacked antitrust standing to bring suit because it could not prove that it purchased a price fixed product from any of the dairies during the relevant period. Who by then claimed to have a poor recollection of his price fixing discussions with Meadow Gold officials. (3) there was guaranteed pricing. (4) the milk was sold to a customer under a private label. Or (5) the milk was purchased from a distributor to whom Valley Rich sold milk. Valley of Virginia are the only defendants remaining in the case. </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="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2153.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoffman were on brief for appellant. Cotchett and Susan Illston were on brief for appellees. Mass. 1993). 2Defendants named in this action are the NFL. Charles Sullivan (plaintiff or Sullivan) is the former owner and sole stockholder of SMC. Was the Patriots' owner at all relevant times. Was to sell the shares to the public. Member teams are not permitted to sell shares to the public unless three fourths of the members approve. William Sullivan was unable to persuade the other NFL owners to allow his proposed deal. The stadium subsequently was sold for the </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="235"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210333.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address two key issues: (1) the effect of the federal rule upon state antitrust law and (2) whether the exem ption extends beyond antitrust prosecutions into the realm of mere investigations. This holding is based upon the Fourth Amendment4 and state law rather than the antitrust exemption. Ct. at 2112 (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/021297p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the propriety of damage awards. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. The suit arises from an arrangement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="232"></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="232"></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="232"></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="232"></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="232"></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="232"></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-2.gif" ALT="232"></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="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1693.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3979.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 OE For purposes of this opinion we are using the current name of the bank. Which is JPMorgan Chase & Co. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Those appeals are submitted on the briefs and the record. Which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion. Who have sued for violations of the Sherman Act. The district court dismissed the claims of each of the plaintiffs either on the ground that their claims were barred by the indirect purchaser rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. Or on the ground that their injuries were too remote and speculative under Associated General Contractors of Cal. We find that Illinois Brick presents no obstacle to any of the plaintiffs' claims but that the claims of the scrap copper dealers are precluded under AGC. We conclude that the purchasers of copper cathode and rod have suffered a direct and independent injury and are the best situated participants in the physical copper market to bring a lawsuit. Which are approximately 90% copper. The anode is refined electrolytically to create sheets of cathode. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-4017.htm">01-4017 -- ASHLEY CREEK PHOSPHATE COMPANY V. CHEVRON USA, INC. -- 01/02/2003<BR></A><BR> The tariffs announced by Chevron and SF for the use of the pipeline were reasonable. Because Utah conceded that its claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/994024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that the funds' injuries were too remote from. We hold that because the hospitals' damages are too speculative and their injuries are too remote from the tobacco companies' alleged wrongdoing. Proximate cause is lacking. Thus the hospitals do not have standing to sue. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellants are sixteen charitable not for profit Pennsylvania hospitals (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5061.htm">98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION -- 04/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1826p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION: The revolutionary changes in the health care field over the past decade have spawned many novel market arrangements. Perhaps the most significant development is the ascendency of managed care driven health maintenance organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513255.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SJI and the Burtons are referred to collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1713_037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the basis of any of the theories the plaintiffs have presented to us. Some or all of their claims are entitled to go forward. It concluded that the federal statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims was not tolled during the pendency of certain state class actions in the California courts. Which were necessarily based on state rather than federal antitrust law. Whether viewed as a question of the time when the plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered that Morgan had anything to do with their injuries or viewed as a question of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment. The facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs could support a finding that their suit was timely. That the plaintiffs' claims against Sumitomo and Global were correctly dismissed. We therefore limit our discussion of the facts (taken for present purposes in the light most favorable to plaintiffs) to those that are of particular relevance. In the underlying actions that were consolidated under the multidistrict litigation (MDL) statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-1532b.html">CTY CLEVELAND OH V. NRC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0395p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The NCAA is a voluntary organization of over 1200 colleges and universities that promulgates rules and regulations designed to. Of concern in this case is a portion of the NCAA Division I men's basketball regulations. Specifically because of a restriction on the type and number of games individual schools are permitted to play. Men's Division I basketball is divided into conferences. There are various tournaments in which a school's team may participate. Some of which are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011894.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mark Gidley </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="214"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1642p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="213"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1642p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1034.html">FILMTEC V. HYDRANAUTICS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D82A28800025BC33882569FB00617636/$file/0035117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D17C39FC223E44388256E5A00707A65/$file/0035117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1845-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 15 U.S.C. § 1.1 These policies are MasterCard's imposition of penalties for charges denied by customers of. BACKGROUND Because this is an appeal from a dismissal of a complaint under Fed. 52 (2d Cir. 1996). a) MasterCard MasterCard is one of four major payment card network service providers in the United States.2 United States v. MasterCard is a membership association operated as an open joint venture. MasterCard is funded primarily by service and transaction fees paid by its members. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-4984.opa.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODUCTS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. The sole issue we address is whether the holding in <i>Cobb v. </i> 488 F.2d 41 (5th Cir.1974) that antitrust claims are non arbitrable remains controlling precedent in this circuit in light of intervening decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Which held that antitrust claims are non arbitrable. This appeal followed.<p> DISCUSSION<p> <p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 16 of the FAA. Antitrust claims are not appropriate subjects of arbitration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-4984.opa.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODUCTS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. The sole issue we address is whether the holding in <i>Cobb v. </i> 488 F.2d 41 (5th Cir.1974) that antitrust claims are non arbitrable remains controlling precedent in this circuit in light of intervening decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Which held that antitrust claims are non arbitrable. This appeal followed.<p> DISCUSSION<p> <p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 16 of the FAA. Antitrust claims are not appropriate subjects of arbitration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="205"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/995319.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether. This case also presents the threshold issue whether we will adopt a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944984.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue we address is whether the holding in Cobb v. 488 F.2d 41 (5th Cir.1974) that antitrust claims are non arbitrable remains controlling precedent in this circuit in light of intervening decisions of the United States Supreme Court. controls. Which held that (5th antitrust claims are non arbitrable. Kotam does not challenge this finding on appeal. 2 DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 16 of the FAA. Antitrust claims are not appropriate subjects of arbitration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995728.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue in this appeal is whether the termination of a wholesale dealer's contract for its refusal to acquiesce in an alleged vertical minimum price fixing conspiracy constitutes an antitrust injury that will support an action for damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act. We will reverse.1 1. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Is engaged in the business of distributing various electronic products. Pace contends that it was unable to do so because Canon ignored its purchase orders. The president of Canon repeatedly instructed 3 Pace's president not to sell to past or existing customers of Laguna and not to sell Canon brand ink jet printers at prices less than those at which Laguna was selling its products. Pace's losses result directly and proximately from the efforts of Canon and Laguna to limit price competition in the market . . . for which both Laguna and Pace were competing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0546n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is purported to be an antitrust case. Osborn and DIA were dismissed and are not at issue on appeal. district court's orders granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude plaintiff's expert's testimony. As will be explained. Osborn was also a member. DIA was awarded the contract in December of 1995. As a 2 Defendant Catholic Healthcare Partners is the corporate parent of MHS. Are officers of MHS. 2 result. The case was settled on remand. Which was added after their motion was filed. The district court found that the expert's methodology for determining a relevant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0741n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul Caruana was the sole shareholder and operator of a General Motors dealership. 000 cash into Tennessee Motors which it could do because Caruana was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995034.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand. Is the brand name of a blood thinning drug prescribed for the prevention and treatment of blood clots.1 Treating physicians carefully monitor patients taking the drug because. The cumulative effect of these attacks was to raise Barr Laboratories' cost to enter the anti coagulant market and to disable its market penetration. The by product claim brought by the individual plaintiffs is that. They have paid inflated prices for Coumadin. The District Court granted in part and denied in part DuPont's motion to dismiss Barr Laboratories' lawsuit.2 The class complaints were dismissed in their entirety. The only issue relevant to this appeal is the District Court's decision that the class plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief under section 16 of the Clayton Act. It failed to assert injury of the type the Sherman Act was designed to prevent. The class did not have standing to request injunctive relief. Our jurisdiction to review this dismissal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. P. 12(b)(6) is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966080.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Florida Seed is engaged in wholesale distribution and marketing of lawn and garden products. Kleenup is based on glyphosate. Monsanto stated that the decision was part of a broader strategic decision to use fewer distributors. Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential nonselective herbicide market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its acquisition of Ortho and its termination of Florida Seed's distributorship.1 Plaintiffs contend that Monsanto's decision was aimed at damaging the value of Kleenup prior to its divestiture under the FTC consent decree. STANDARD OF REVIEW </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-6080.opa.html">FLORIDA SEED CO. V. MONSANTO CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Seed Co. v. Florida Seed is engaged in wholesale distribution and marketing of lawn and garden products. Kleenup is based on glyphosate. Monsanto stated that the decision was part of a broader strategic decision to use fewer distributors. Florida Seed and Frit then filed this antitrust suit.<p> Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential nonselective herbicide market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its acquisition of Ortho and its termination of Florida Seed's distributorship.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-6080.opa.html">FLORIDA SEED CO. V. MONSANTO CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Seed Co. v. Florida Seed is engaged in wholesale distribution and marketing of lawn and garden products. Kleenup is based on glyphosate. Monsanto stated that the decision was part of a broader strategic decision to use fewer distributors. Florida Seed and Frit then filed this antitrust suit.<p> Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto engaged in monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential nonselective herbicide market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its acquisition of Ortho and its termination of Florida Seed's distributorship.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/014348p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' RICO claim because it lacked the specificity in pleading fraud that is required under Fed. 2001). 1 We agree that the RICO claim was properly dismissed. Because it is predicated on mail and wire fraud. It was not. The antitrust claim is also based on fraud ­ on misrepresentations in the information given to consumers and on misrepresentations in the information ROTH. Gary Oriani have borrowed money from defendant banks pursuant to lending agreements with </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.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/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/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://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.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.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.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 $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/810E1F7AEC93AD6D88256ED0007C4BA3/$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.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/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.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.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://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://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://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://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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-4984.ma2.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. <a href= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-2077.opa.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-4984.ma2.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/024478u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Being fictitious defendants whose indentities are not presently known Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. W e granted Weisfeld permission to appeal and have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). I. Weisfeld was. Weisfeld brings suit on behalf of himself and all persons who were employed by defendants. The new proposed class was defined as personnel who provide technical services and who possess specialized knowledge and skills in the manufacture. Distribution and sale of printing inks who were employed by defendants. We will do the same. 937 (2d Cir. 1993) (stating that a court </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-2077.opa.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="197"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-4984.eb.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODUCTS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="197"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2001.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. Alleging that price fixing activities which took place entirely in Japan are prosecutable because they were intended to have. Did in fact have. Because the issue of successor liability is not before us. We treat NPI as if it were the sole defendant and as if it. Were alleged to have committed the acts described in the indictment. 2 fix the price of thermal fax paper throughout North America. NPI and other manufacturers who were privy to the scheme purportedly accomplished their objective by selling the paper in Japan to unaffiliated trading houses on condition that the latter charge specified (inflated) prices for the paper when they resold it in North America. NPI monitored the paper trail and confirmed that the prices charged to end users were those that it had arranged. ANALYSIS We begin and end with the overriding legal question.2 Because this question is one of statutory construction. Is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="197"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-4984.eb.html">KOTAM ELECTRONICS V. JBL CONSUMER PRODUCTS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kotam Electronics v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/014535.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarke Will W. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 2 Appellants are represented through briefs and oral argument by two groups of manufacturers. Which are in turn used in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and for a variety of industrial and commercial applications. Corrugated sheets are made by gluing a fluted sheet which is not made of linerboard. Corrugated sheets are also referred to as containerboard. Appellants are major integrated manufacturers and sellers of linerboard. Appellants are not ipsis verbis challenging the district court's determination that the putative classes met the requirements of Rule 23(a). 3. Stone Container Corp. and Smurfit Stone Container Corp. 7 After individual law suits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 5 the cases were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022906p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The MSA was entered into 1. This suit is just one in a series attacking the MSA and statutes passed pursuant to it. These suits have been unsuccessful. We note that the Majors are not named defendants in this particular litigation as this court concluded in an earlier decision that the Majors were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. Lorillard Tobacco. 5 Bedell and will be repeated here only to the extent necessary for the discussion and analysis. The MSA was negotiated after various lawsuits were either brought or threatened against the Majors and other tobacco companies by States seeking to recover Medicaid funds that they spent to treat tobacco related diseases. Pennsylvania filed suit against the Majors in April 1997 and the suit was settled as part of the MSA.3 Under the MSA. Provisions that the Plaintiffs allege were to be funded by the payment by wholesalers and consumers of artificially high prices for cigarettes. Plaintiffs further contend that after the MSA was entered into. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2718.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1046p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we address are whether the companies in the Bethlehem Steel corporate family and their agents were legally capable of engaging in an antitrust conspiracy with each other. We hold that the defendants were legally incapable of conspiring with one another or with their agents. We conclude that the defendants are not liable for breach of contract. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Joruss Trucking were owned by Russell Siegel and his wife. Were based in Sparrows Point. It hoped to capture at least a portion of the revenue it was paying to outside truckers. Section 11343(e) authorizes the Commission to exempt an acquisition from regulatory oversight if it finds that regulation is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of the Act. [fn3] and the acquisition is limited in scope or unlikely to result in an abuse of market power. 49 U.S.C. § 11343(e). Once the acquisition was finalized. Non exclusive agents in different parts of the country to make arrangements with owner operators or with other carriers who had access to trucks and drivers to carry the freight it was under contract to transport. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-7163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine E. With him on the brief were Arthur M. Circuit Judge: This appeal presents for the first time in this circuit the threshold question of when interlocu tory review of a class certification decision is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We conclude that interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) typically is appropriate in three circumstances: (1) when there is a death knell situation for either the plaintiff or defendant that is independent of the merits of the underlying claims. Coupled with a class certification decision by the district court that is questionable. That is likely to evade end of the case review. (3) when the district court's class certifi cation decision is manifestly erroneous. I. The class action now pending in the district court was preceded by two lawsuits brought by the FTC and several States' Attorneys General against Mylan that were ultimately consolidated and ended in a settlement. Which argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdic tion because the FTC was not authorized to seek either monetary relief or a permanent injunction in an antitrust case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1174p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our ruling on this issue is dispositive. Which is not properly before us. Which is rendered superfluous. The resulting claims were settled for $243. Which was turned over to the bankruptcy trustee. The requisite order was issued on March 23. The bankruptcy proceedings were closed sometime prior to February 1989. 000 in retired business debt was not taxable income. Alleging it was granted erroneously since Hutchins was not the proper party to receive a refund of taxes paid by the bankruptcy estate. We have jurisdiction over the district court's final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary. The question of standing is itself subject to plenary review. The right to the refund was not abandoned but was instead retained by the estate. Any tax refund granted to Hutchins was erroneous and could be recovered. The refund claim was at best a derivative asset that arose as a result of the trustee's tax filings on behalf of the estate. The claim was not asserted until after the bankruptcy had closed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3034.htm">96-3034 -- LAW V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION -- 01/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Background</strong> <p> The NCAA is a voluntary unincorporated association of approximately 1. The NCAA aims to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1331p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held all defendants except Columbia Hospital were immune from suit for monetary damages under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011435.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those events and their ramifications have not yet mooted any aspect of this case. The district court and the parties will undoubtedly have to deal with these issues in considering any prospective relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944984.EB.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 that antitrust claims are non arbitrable. The Supreme Court made antitrust disputes in the international context are See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Today we hold that antitrust disputes in the domestic context are arbitrable as well. There is no dispute that Kotam's single claim for price discrimination falls squarely within the terms of the parties' agreement to arbitrate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944984.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 that antitrust claims are non arbitrable. The Supreme Court made clear that antitrust disputes in the international context are arbitrable. Today we hold that antitrust disputes in the domestic context are arbitrable as well. Dissenting). 2 A majority of the judges of this court in regular There is no dispute that Kotam's single claim for price discrimination falls squarely within the terms of the parties' agreement to arbitrate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Matthew D. Of counsel on the brief were Timothy E. With him on the brief were Vicki Margolis and Rebecca G. With him on the brief were Lauren A. Of counsel on the brief were Mark J. Of counsel was William J. The term electrosurgery refers to a surgical technique in which high frequency electrical current is applied to cut or ablate body tissue. There are two forms of electrosurgical devices. Electric current passes from a single exposed electrode into the body tissue that is to be ablated. Both electrodes are inserted into the body. There are disadvantages to applying high voltages within the patient's body. Including the risk that the electrical discharge will cause damage other than to the target tissue. Are owned by ArthroCare Corporation. In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware claiming that Smith & Nephew was liable for infringement of those patents based on its manufacture of certain electrosurgical probes and the use of those probes in surgery. Smith & Nephew's theory of antitrust liability was that ArthroCare and Ethicon had settled an earlier dispute in a manner designed to restrain other competitors from entering the market for electrosurgical devices and that ArthoCare had brought this action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024272p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three of the issues are of first impression to this Court. The first issue is whether worldwide service of process authorized under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Upon foreign corporations is independent of the specific venue provision contained in that statute. The second issue is whether a federal court's personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in antitrust litigation may be predicated on the foreign corporation's contacts with the United States as a whole (national contacts analysis). The final issue is whether jurisdictional discovery from foreign nationals may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without first resorting to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention or Convention). 23 U.S.T. 2555. Those actions were transferred to. Are: PPG Industries. Have stipulated to certification of a national class consisting of all direct purchasers of automotive refinishes from the defendants. The appellants submitted affidavits stating that they did not have presence in the state of Pennsylvania and never sold any automotive refinish paint to any customers in Pennsylvania. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1389_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background No. 05 1389 General Drilling is a non union company that owns large drill rigs and drills blast holes for limestone quarries in Indiana. Drilling blast holes is the first step in the process of mining limestone from a quarry. The following people hold high ranking positions at General Drilling: William Boatman is president. David Keil is a director. Catherine Diehr is secretary. These four are known collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-1171.htm">00-1171 -- HAYNES TRANE SERVICE AGENCY V. AMERICAN STANDARD INC. -- 08/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The contract was for an indeterminate period and stated that it could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4043.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is the result of certain Utah optometrists' decade long effort to become panel providers for the largest managed health care company in the state. The Plaintiffs The Plaintiffs are forty nine optometrists who practice along Utah's Wasatch Front and their affiliated professional organizations. Have been permitted under Utah law to perform the full scope of non surgical eye care ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-2293.wpd.html">BROWN V. PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH CARE SERVS.<BR></A><BR> The defendants' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/053873P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A group of consumers and organizations from Minnesota who have purchased prescription drugs in the United States from the defendant drug companies in the United States. The gravamen of the complaint was that the defendants unlawfully conspired to suppress the importation of Canadian prescription drugs for personal use. Including: (1) requiring Canadian pharmacies to certify that they were not selling prescription drugs to persons whom the pharmacies knew or should have known were taking the drugs outside the country. (3) creating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971698.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which Judge Williams joined. *Senior Judge Merhige participated in the hearing of this case at oral argument but retired before the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. Grace & Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1905.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USG contends that ProLiance is an unlawful 2 No. 03 1905 combination that by contract controls a substantial fraction of the transport capacity between the gas fields and Indiana. Pipelines have been able to charge more for their residual capacity because of ProLiance's existence (and practices) than the pipelines would have been able to charge in its absence. Indiana Gas and Citizens Gas have many customers with firm entitlements to gas. Where USG bought it at attractive prices and used it to secure gas that it stored for times when spot market prices were high. There are several ways to characterize what happened. Which means that less aggregate reserve capacity is needed. This is the way in which an insurer. Creates a portfolio that is less risky than any insured standing alone. Is that third parties such as USG find fewer bargains in the spot market. Because all we have to go on is USG's complaint. It is too soon to determine whose understanding of these events is superior. The suit is barred by the four year period of limitations in 15 U.S.C. §15b. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-6047.htm">00-6047 -- TRIGEN-OKLAHOMA CITY ENERGY CORP. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. -- 04/03/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1188.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Mitchell Lukin and David M. With him on the brief were Gerard G. Hydril generally sells its connections to drill pipe distributors </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/02-20843-CR1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied. 1 Insulation. (5) whether the district court should have ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Which was expanding into many new areas at the time. Was responsible for the low prices. At which time Rhodes was working on Mizell Co.'s prices. Yueh was a former vice president of a company that sold laminated fiberglass primarily in Texas. They were to stick to the price sheets. Rhodes (of Mizell Co.) testified that when a conspirator believed another conspirator was offering too low a price to a mutual customer. Nilsen (of Mizell Co.) also called Rhodes whenever he believed that Supreme was pricing below the agreed upon level. Rhodes responded to Nilsen that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun14/02-20843-CR1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (5) whether the district court should have ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Which was expanding into many new areas at the time. Was responsible for the low prices. At which time Rhodes was working on Mizell Co.'s prices. Yueh was a former vice president of a company that sold laminated fiberglass primarily in Texas. They were to stick to the price sheets. Rhodes (of Mizell Co.) testified that when a conspirator believed another conspirator was offering too low a price to a mutual customer. Nilsen (of Mizell Co.) also called Rhodes whenever he believed that Supreme was pricing below the agreed upon level. Rhodes responded to Nilsen that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun15/02-20843-CR1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied. 1 Insulation. (5) whether the district court should have ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Which was expanding into many new areas at the time. Was responsible for the low prices. At which time Rhodes was working on Mizell Co.'s prices. Yueh was a former vice president of a company that sold laminated fiberglass primarily in Texas. They were to stick to the price sheets. Rhodes (of Mizell Co.) testified that when a conspirator believed another conspirator was offering too low a price to a mutual customer. Nilsen (of Mizell Co.) also called Rhodes whenever he believed that Supreme was pricing below the agreed upon level. Rhodes responded to Nilsen that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/02-20843-CR1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied. 1 Insulation. (5) whether the district court should have ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Which was expanding into many new areas at the time. Was responsible for the low prices. At which time Rhodes was working on Mizell Co.'s prices. Yueh was a former vice president of a company that sold laminated fiberglass primarily in Texas. They were to stick to the price sheets. Rhodes (of Mizell Co.) testified that when a conspirator believed another conspirator was offering too low a price to a mutual customer. Nilsen (of Mizell Co.) also called Rhodes whenever he believed that Supreme was pricing below the agreed upon level. Rhodes responded to Nilsen that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7979639F87F0F5E4882569DF0063580A/$file/0010167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/7017f5e691d20b3688256e5a00707a19/$FILE/0010167.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/7979639f87f0f5e4882569df0063580a/$FILE/0010167.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1194.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They alleged that the Land Board (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. I. BACKGROUND Crow Hill Ranch is located in Park County. Colorado and is owned by the Land Board. The jury also ruled that the Harpers were not liable for past rent. The district court ruled that the Land Board was entitled to possession of the property and ordered the Harpers to deliver possession in sixty days. They stated that they were not appealing the dismissal of the individual Land Board officials ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7017F5E691D20B3688256E5A00707A19/$file/0010167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Candice C. Of counsel was Todd Stockwell. With him on the brief were Stacey A. This is a patent infringement and antitrust case dealing with a unique ice cream product. 156 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2391.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1184.html">Q-PHARMA, INC. V. THE ANDREW JERGENS COMPANY<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>William R. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Jerold I. Which is directed to a method for therapeutically treating damaged tissue by topically administering a composition containing Coenzyme Q<sub>10</sub> ( CoQ<sub>10</sub> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The sole independent claim of the 373 patent reads as follows:</p> <p class=MsoBlockText>A method of therapeutically treating impaired or damaged tissue in humans and animals which comprises topically administering to such tissue a composition comprising as the <u>principal active ingredient</u> a <u>therapeutically effective amount</u> of Coenzyme Q<sub>10</sub> (2. The court rejected Jergens argument that Q Pharma was on notice of the patent s invalidity prior to filing suit. The court found that Jergens Rule 11 motion was untimely under Rule 11 s safe harbor provision. Because it was filed after Q Pharma had voluntarily withdrawn its claim and therefore provided Q Pharma with no opportunity to cure the challenged conduct.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Rule 11 Order</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC33BE4A5002E911882570180078E92D/$file/0316878.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. An attorney who was MOTHERSHED v. A default judgment was entered against him. Mothershed alleged that the Arizona disciplinary proceedings were invalid because he had not been served with a summons. He contended that the Oklahoma proceedings were likewise defective because his hearing did not occur between thirty and sixty days after appointment of the trial panel. The court later dismissed the claims against the Arizona defendants on the ground that Mothershed was improperly seeking review of the Arizona bar disciplinary proceedings in a lower Responsibility Tribunal shall notify the respondent and the General Counsel of the appointment and membership of the Trial Panel and of the time and place for hearing. JUSTICES 6331 federal court and that subject matter jurisdiction was therefore absent under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. The Supreme Court recently reiterated that its applicability </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/071C6D0AC0CFD45C8825704400737CAC/$file/0316878.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 6334. The Supreme Court clarified that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is only operative where a federal suit is initiated after state court pro MOTHERSHED v. JUSTICES 8527 ceedings have ended. 125 S. 25 (1st Cir. 2005) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-3135.htm">00-3135 -- ORR V. BHR INC. -- 02/16/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Steven M. We affirm. <p> <em><center></em>I<em>.</em></center> <p> Plaintiff was employed by St. Was a minority shareholder in SJEP. He complained that the rates charged to SJEP for billing services provided by defendant BHR were higher than competitive prices. Who were the controlling shareholders in both SJEP and BHR. Plaintiff further claimed that his at will employment with SJEP was terminated because he opposed the billing situation between SJEP and BHR. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>Celotex Corp. v. Plaintiff asserts that the district court committed reversible error on the following grounds: (1) summary judgment on the antitrust claims was error because plaintiff was a target of defendants' anti competitive scheme and his cooperation was integral to the success of the illegal scheme. (2) the claim of tortious interference with a contract or business relationship was not subject to summary judgment because defendants had an improper purpose and their conduct in discharging plaintiff violated state and federal law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D34252614C4EDEC788256E5A00707A1F/$file/9935204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order is substituted in its place. Judges Tashima and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc and Judge Lay so recommends. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. Thus PacifiCorp is not shielded by the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act. PacifiCorp stipulated to the district court that it would provide wholesale electricity to SRVEA if Enron cancelled its contract and PacifiCorp is found to violate the antitrust statutes in the present case. We need not resolve these issues. 5 SRVEA also alleged that PacifiCorp violated several provisions of state law and violated federal antitrust laws with respect to four Idaho customers who are not presently served by PacifiCorp. We are satisfied the district court's order is a final order. The acknowledged purpose of this statute was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/145DCF70DD6C095F882569E300616E36/$file/9935204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order is substituted in its place. Judges Tashima and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc and Judge Lay so recommends. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. Thus PacifiCorp is not shielded by the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act. PacifiCorp stipulated to the district court that it would provide wholesale electricity to SRVEA if Enron cancelled its contract and PacifiCorp is found to violate the antitrust statutes in the present case. We need not resolve these issues. 5 SRVEA also alleged that PacifiCorp violated several provisions of state law and violated federal antitrust laws with respect to four Idaho customers who are not presently served by PacifiCorp. We are satisfied the district court's order is a final order. The acknowledged purpose of this statute was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct05/03-40691-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We refer to them collectively. 2 1 lions of consumers who have purchased a car in Texas since 1994. The tax was just another overhead expense to be absorbed as part of the sales price. Defendants are engaged in horizontal price fixing. Have been unjustly enriched. Is hereby declared to be illegal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0434p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Trane is a manufacturer and distributor of heating and cooling (HVAC) equipment. It selects dealers who are then authorized to sell and service Trane equipment as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992186.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is a companion case to City of Charleston. The two cases are decided concurrently. To which short lines and baited hooks are attached at intervals. It is highly regulated and federally permitted and is the dominant form of commercial fishing used by United States fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean to harvest highly migratory species such as swordfish and shark. 1 A FISHERMAN'S BEST v. Longlining is bitterly opposed by recreational and sportsfishermen and some environmental groups. Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national non profit organization whose stated purpose is rebuilding and preserving fisheries in the United States. It is aligned in principle to sports and recreational fishing and generally opposed to commercial fishing. The CHP group is composed of persons who wanted their group selected as operator of the Maritime Center. Their response to the request for proposals was rejected as untimely. There is evidence that they requested RFA to ask the mayor to accept their proposal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1652.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garcia & Fernandez were on brief. Sidley & Austin were on brief. We did so because the antitrust verdict may have included damages for the monopolization claim. There was a reasonable possibility the jury had awarded plaintiff too much. Because we were remanding for a new trial on damages. The entire price discrimination damages case was retried and the second jury returned a verdict on the price discrimination claim which was three times larger ($4.5 million before trebling) than the initial verdict. $2 million was for going concern damages. As the parties have agreed. CAPECO's refinery was the only one nearby. CAPECO was the only local source of bunker fuel. CAPECO was. Coastal was a new entrant to the bunker fuel market in San Juan. Coastal was not profitable during this period. Was between 2.5 and 4.0 million barrels per year. The actual average price advantage given by CAPECO to Coastal's competitors was $.48 per barrel in favor of Harbor and $.37 per barrel in favor of Caribbean. The tax was repealed in December 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1609.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hyatt and Hyatt & Hyatt Law Offices were on brief for appellants. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellees. The plaintiffs are two real estate trustees. The majority of town councilors may have discussed the matter with Weagle and may have reached an agreement with him to cast a negative vote. Plaintiffs were left to obtain much higher cost financing elsewhere. Five town councilors have violated the Sherman Act by acting in this way. 15 U.S.C. 1 (forbidding agreements in restraint of trade). The legal question before us is whether. Its officials are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1712.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S</SPAN> were on brief. Torres Marcano</SPAN> was on brief. Ross</SPAN> were on brief. We turn to this question mindful that vertical restraints have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1167p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Our review of these issues of standing and statutory construction is plenary. 1530 n.19 (3d Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-40691-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We refer to them collectively. 2 1 lions of consumers who have purchased a car in Texas since 1994. The tax was just another overhead expense to be absorbed as part of the sales price. Defendants are engaged in horizontal price fixing. Have been unjustly enriched. Is hereby declared to be illegal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F4B9BC4450E02BB88256EA00080CE35/$file/0256770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that venue and personal jurisdiction are independent requirements under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051480p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alito heard oral argument in this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Circuit Judge This case raises a significant constitutional question of first impression in this Circuit: whether federal courts have authority. Although federal courts have this authority in narrow circumstances. We conclude that this is not such a case and therefore reverse the District Court's judgment to the contrary. 4 I. Is a leading supplier of parcel tanker shipping services. Cooperman also told Nannes that he believed an internal investigation would 5 demonstrate that the Company was in violation of federal antitrust laws and asked Nannes about the possibility of leniency from the Department of Justice. Nannes spoke with an Antitrust Division official later that day to inquire about amnesty if Stolt Nielsen were to admit its violations. The Government agrees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4136.htm">98-4136 -- DIAZ V. FARLEY -- 06/27/2000<BR></A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F2D0E6B6C3941E788256E0100727307/$file/0216508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Presiding *The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities that are prohibited under California state law from offering casinostyle gaming. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7093a.html">SEIU V. PHILIP MORRIS<BR></A><BR> Wachtell argued the cause in No. 00 7093 for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512320.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first of which is an issue of first impression in this Circuit: (1) whether the doctrine of in pari delicto bars a trustee's claims on behalf of a bankrupt debtor for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Laddin is the trusteein bankruptcy for ETS. The operation of the sale leaseback program was a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of over $300 million. IRA Custodians) are large holders of individual retirement accounts. Laddin did not have 4 standing to assert claims on behalf of the creditors. The court reasoned that the Creditors' Committee did not have the authority to assign the claims belonging to ETS creditors and the Trust Agreement did not authorize Laddin to bring claims on behalf of creditors. The wrongdoing of Edwards as a sole shareholder was imputed to ETS. Because the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/032814P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Varners were unable to meet their interest obligations with Decatur Bank. Judgments and decrees of foreclosure were issued in favor of Decatur Bank on February 16 and 20. The property was subsequently sold. The Varners were subsequently discharged from bankruptcy. The Varners claimed that this former loan officer indicated that the projected cashflow figures were false and misleading. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1479.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Richard L. With him on the brief was Camille L. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the two patents were invalid and unenforceable. The unfair competition and antitrust counterclaims were severed from the remainder of the case. The second case was stayed pending resolution of the patent issues. Kemin Foods is the assignee of one of the two patents in suit. Kemin Foods is the exclusive licensee of that patent. The patents in suit include process and product claims pertaining to purified lutein that is extracted from plants. Lutein is a carotenoid (i.e. Was effectively precluded from doing so by a pretrial order striking a supplemental expert report proffered by Kemin. The jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid. The jury also found that the asserted claims of the '714 patent were not infringed. 06 1002 2 that claim 1 of the '564 patent was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court also rejected PIVEG's claim that both patents were unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. </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/99/11/983758P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action commenced as a class action by purchasers of milk and milk products at wholesale. The defendants are milk processors accused of conspiring to fix their wholesale prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the price fixing allegations were too vague and the fraudulent concealment allegations were factually insufficient. The court's fraudulent concealment ruling was significant to class certification because some of the named plaintiffs had only purchased milk outside the four year limitations period. Including two whose only milk purchases were outside the limitations period. Conceding they were not appropriate class representatives.3 Third. Magic City Cakes was outside the reduced geographic area. Concluding: The simple fact is that this case was originally filed in May 1996. Plaintiffs have already twice been allowed to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint is denied. </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/04587FD9BBA5D1A28825733F007A374E/$file/0515847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellate attorney's fees are </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=04-1177.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief became moot after the district court entered judgment in this case and defendants are immune from the remaining claims for damages. The decision of the district court is vacated as to the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and affirmed as to the claims for damages. The district court's decision to dismiss certain state law claims with prejudice is also affirmed. Limited gaming is permitted in the state of Colorado only in the cities of Central City. Central City and Black Hawk are neighboring towns located approximately twenty five miles west of Denver. At the time the complaint was filed. A substantial portion of the area necessary for construction of the road was owned by Proland Management. These conveyances were styled 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://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-7093a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter C. With him on the brief were Daniel Edelman and Roger M. On the briefs for appellants and amicus curiae Guatemalan National League Against Cancer were George M. With him on the brief were Peter C. Geller were on the brief in No. 00 7023 of amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The court must determine whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated proximate cause in seeking. Similar claims have been considered and rejected as too remote by seven other circuits. Because we agree with the other circuits that the alleged injuries of the third party payors are too remote to have been proximately caused by the defendants' alleged conduct. Rejected the view that such damages are entirely derivative of the harm suffered by the funds' beneficiaries. The district court concluded that foreseeable harm to the funds stemming from defendants' alleged conduct was </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4589.opa.html">UNIFORCE TEMP. PERSONNEL V. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMP. INS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Uniforce Temp. The premiums are higher because of the combined loss experience of the insurance carriers in the residual market and because these carriers oftentimes contract their duties under 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4589.opa.html">UNIFORCE TEMP. PERSONNEL V. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMP. INS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Uniforce Temp. The premiums are higher because of the combined loss experience of the insurance carriers in the residual market and because these carriers oftentimes contract their duties under 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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0429p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. A detailed discussion of the facts giving rise to this litigation are found in a previous opinion by this court and will not be repeated here. A lawsuit was brought in the Eastern District of Michigan by several state attorneys general. Their suit was consolidated with the others already before the district court. Sams was one of 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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTA5MTlfc28ucGRm/05-0919_so.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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTA5MTlfc28ucGRm/05-0919_so.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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> & the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Craftsmen is a closely held corporation owned by Robert Haswell and Marc Haswell. Is one of Craftsmen's direct competitors. It manufactures base vehicles that are later converted into limousines by independent coachbuilders like American Coach and Craftsmen. Approximately sixty percent of the six thousand limousines produced each year were converted from Ford's Lincoln Town Cars. The limousine industry is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Coachbuilders are responsible for self certifying that their vehicles meet the federal safety standards. It claimed its vehicles were safe based on the construction techniques employed and the fact that none of its customers ever returned a limousine out of a concern for safety.2 At the time. Craftsmen complied with the recall orders and was not fined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A wedding party in New York was killed when its limousine was hit and split in half as it crossed an intersection. </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/00/00-3700.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is part of the broader multi district litigation that was spawned by an alleged conspiracy involving Sumitomo and others to raise the price of copper and manipulate the London Metals Exchange (LME). Claim that they were injured by this conspiracy when Sumitomo Corpora 2 No. 00 3700 tion (Sumitomo). They allege that the purpose of the conspiracy was to </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FC68213410F1189882571DB005A0F82/$file/0171051ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Davises argue that the district court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing to pursue their claims because their rights were not within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1653p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Davises argue that the district <p>court erred by concluding they lacked prudential standing <p>to pursue their claims because their rights were not within <p>the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/91-1125.html">KING INSTRUMENTS V. PEREGO AND TAPEMATIC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1796515EB13DA42882571BD007FC846/$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.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.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.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://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.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.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://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.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.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.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://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://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.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> <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="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1467.html">GLASS EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED V. BESTEN, INC.,<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Wade A. Of counsel on the brief was Linn J. With him on the brief was Cheryl L. Of counsel on the brief were Gregory A. (Besten) is not liable for inducing infringement of GED's method patent No. 4. Assuming that Besten's relevant allegations are true. GED cannot have any antitrust liability. That are used in the manufacture of thermally insulating glass windows. Spacer frames are generally composed of hollow aluminum bars that are joined at their ends with ". Both are coated with sealant/adhesive so that. When the spacer frame is sandwiched between two sheets of glass. An air and moisture tight seal is formed between the frame and the glass and an insulating space is formed between the glass sheets. </p> <p>GED is the assignee of U.S. Locking corner keys) are elements of the apparatus patent combination claims but are not claimed independently. Locking corner keys. </p> <p>GED is also the assignee of the '582 method patent in suit. GED is a competitor of Besten in the sale of linear extruding machines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1856.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Skolnik were on brief for appellants. Noonberg were on brief for appellees. Plaintiffs are a group of Maine employers who claim that the defendant insurance companies illegally conspired to fix prices and conduct a boycott in a successful effort to coerce the state legislature into permitting higher rates for workers' compensation insurance.1 The district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on the doctrines established in Parker v. 365 U.S. 127 (1961).2 The court concluded that plaintiffs' claimed damage the additional cost of their insurance was attributable to the legislation rather than to the alleged conspiracy. A voluntary association of insurers that is a state licensed rating organization. 2 In briefest summary. Regulation is strict. All employers who do not self insure are required to purchase such insurance. Insurers are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0145A2213934B8818825734D0052C73A/$file/0515031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The royalty payments provided for in this contract are the subject of the present dispute. The contract at issue is unambiguous as to the duration of the royalties. The parties agree on their intent at the time it was formed. All the evidence is thus in accord with a single interpretation that Tinnell would relinquish all rights to Zilactin. The product has been improved since it was developed in 1976 and is now sold under the brand name Zilactin. Which is the subject of a patent application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1075b.html">PROC GAS CONSUM V. FERC<BR></A><BR> Jr.</i> argued the cause for petitioners. <p> With him on the briefs were <i>Gregory K. With him on <p> the brief were <i>Jay L. With <p> him on the brief was <i>Shemin V. For which delivery is guaranteed. For which delivery can be delayed if all the <p> capacity on the pipeline is in use. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether three Minnesota nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have presented sufficient evidence of causation of harm and damages to recoup certain health care costs of their members that resulted from tobacco use. We have the advantage of some recent guidance from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the question. Only the second question is currently relevant. The Minnesota Supreme Court responded that although proof of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-1075a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gregory K. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was Shemin V. For which delivery is guaranteed. For which delivery can be delayed if all the capacity on the pipeline is in use. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2033p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Appellants are a putative nationwide class of retail sellers of motor oil and other engine lubricants that purportedly compete with Slick 50. The Appellees were enjoined from disseminating false or unsubstantiated claims regarding Slick 50 and agreed to provide $10 million in discounts. Certain state consumer protection statutes that are not at issue in this appeal. At any time between the time Slick 50 was first marketed to the public and the present. Have offered for sale. The harm the Appellants allege they suffered is loss of sales of products they sell. The District Court held that only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-1075b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gregory K. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was Shemin V. For which delivery is guaranteed. For which delivery can be delayed if all the capacity on the pipeline is in use. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002473.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Herr alleges that his right to substantive due process was violated by an eleven year campaign of the Township and its officers to delay and obstruct his development of an industrial park. While it acknowledged that Herr's project was grandfathered under the prior land use plan if he completed it within five years. Herr claims that the defendants' conduct with respect to his proposed development was motivated throughout by a strong desire to preserve agricultural land and restrain development in the Township. He has tendered evidence tending to show that the individual defendants had run for office on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1813p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A student athlete is eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics for a total of four seasons within a five year period. The NCAA concludes that her Title IX claim is moot. Smith's Title IX claim is not moot although her period of eligibility has expired because she retains a claim for damages. 1889 (1984) (holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim). States that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983243P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the antitrust claims were precluded by the statute of limitations and that the ADDICA claim was barred on both claim preclusion and statute of limitations grounds. We conclude that appellant presented the district court with no genuine material fact supporting the existence of an antitrust conspiracy between TMS and GST and that summary judgment was thus appropriate. In ruling that appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. While this statement of the law is generally correct. It is also true that in the context of a continuing violation. Appellant merely asserted that there is strong evidence that defendants conspired with one another. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient to avoid summary judgment in Chalmers v. Alleging that the various antitrust violations establish a per se violation of good faith as that term is defined at 15 U.S.C. § 1221(e). We agree with the district court that the ADDICA claim is barred by the claim preclusive effect of the earlier state court judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953257.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that their alleged conduct was exempt under the McCarran Ferguson Act. The FWUA is a joint underwriting association Slagle appealed. State law mandates that the described insurers belong to the FWUA and provide windstorm coverage to eligible applicants who are unable to obtain such coverage through ordinary means. Member insurers are required to pay for the FWUA's losses on a proportionate basis. As 1 Fla.Stat. § 627.351(2)(b) reads: The department shall require all insurers licensed to transact property insurance on a direct basis in this state to provide windstorm coverage to applicants from areas determined to be eligible pursuant to paragraph (c) who in good faith are entitled to. Are unable to procure. Slagle alleged that the appellees have engaged in concerted anticompetitive conduct by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1368.html">INTERGRAPH V. INTEL<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this case is an application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Soon after the action was filed. Arguing (1) that plaintiffs lack statutory standing under RICO to pursue this case because any injury they suffered was derivative of an injury The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell. Because we reject the application of Garmon preemption in this context and because we cannot say at this early stage in the case that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish statutory standing. Tyson's headquarters are in Springdale. One of Tyson's plants is located in Shelbyville. Soon after the indictment was filed. Tabetha Eddings and Doris Jewell former hourly workers at Tyson's Shelbyville facility who were legally employed by Tyson filed this civil RICO action against Tyson based on some of the same allegedly illegal activities underlying the criminal indictment. The amended complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress the wages paid to its hourly employees by knowingly hiring undocumented illegal immigrants who were willing to work for wages well below those paid in labor markets composed of only United States citizens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 36. Line 9: change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-6194.man.html">LOWELL V. AM. CYANAMID CO. (6/9/1999, NO. 98-6194)<BR></A><BR> Have appealed a district court order dismissing an antitrust complaint for failure to join middlemen dealers as defendants pursuant to <EM>Illinois Brick Co. v. The district court decision is vacated. The case is remanded.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Between 1989 and 1995. The specified resale price was equal to the wholesale prices paid by the dealer. Does not apply to a vertical price fixing scheme where (1) a plaintiff buys directly from a dealer who combined with a manufacturer to fix the prices and (2) no allegations are made of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/95-3257.opa.html">SLAGLE V. ITT HARTFORD<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Slagle v. Contending that their alleged conduct was exempt under the McCarran Ferguson Act. The FWUA is a joint underwriting association comprised of property insurers licensed to do business in Florida. State law mandates that the described insurers belong to the FWUA and provide windstorm coverage to eligible applicants who are unable to obtain such coverage through ordinary means. <i>See American Ins. 785 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (construing Fla.Stat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-4157.htm">98-4157 -- HUNTSMAN CHEMICAL CORP. V. HOLLAND PLASTICS CO. -- 02/29/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Holland Plastics Company [hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-6194.man.html">LOWELL V. AM. CYANAMID CO. (6/9/1999, NO. 98-6194)<BR></A><BR> Have appealed a district court order dismissing an antitrust complaint for failure to join middlemen dealers as defendants pursuant to <EM>Illinois Brick Co. v. The district court decision is vacated. The case is remanded.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Between 1989 and 1995. The specified resale price was equal to the wholesale prices paid by the dealer. Does not apply to a vertical price fixing scheme where (1) a plaintiff buys directly from a dealer who combined with a manufacturer to fix the prices and (2) no allegations are made of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1637a.html">SBC COMM INC V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/95-3257.opa.html">SLAGLE V. ITT HARTFORD<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Slagle v. Contending that their alleged conduct was exempt under the McCarran Ferguson Act. The FWUA is a joint underwriting association comprised of property insurers licensed to do business in Florida. State law mandates that the described insurers belong to the FWUA and provide windstorm coverage to eligible applicants who are unable to obtain such coverage through ordinary means. <i>See American Ins. 785 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (construing Fla.Stat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/992356P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant hospitals are Unity Hospital. Also named as defendants are hospital employees John Murphy and Allina Health System Corp. Which is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991657P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. 1 competitor of the Brookins. IMCA is the oldest auto racing sanctioning body in the United States. Specific car rules for each racing class are established by the IMCA executive committee. IMCA's executive committee then revised the rule to require that all automatic transmissions have a functioning pump. When IMCA changed its rules in response to pressure from rival transmission manufacturers who were also IMCA sponsors. The Brookins contend that IMCA's adverse rule changes were the product of concerted action by IMCA and competing transmission manufacturers that unreasonably restrained trade in modified car transmissions.3 To prevail on this Section 1 claim. Noting undisputed evidence that there are many racing classes and many competing auto racing sanctioning bodies. The court also concluded there was no evidence that excluding the Ernie Glide and Ernie Slide transmissions from modified car races has had an actual adverse effect on competition in that market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3894_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a former employee of James Cape & Sons ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10660.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Holding that appellants are not entitled to a defense or indemnity under the umbrella liability policies issued to them by plaintiffcounter defendant appellee RLI Insurance Company (RLI). MSI and Brekke were listed as additional insureds on the supplementary schedules of each policy. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-2320.opa.html">FLORIDA MUN. POWER AGENCY V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Mun. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The primary issue in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/95-1402a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the petitioner. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the respondents. Were on brief for the intervenors. This court vacated the orders and remanded for further proceedings after petitions for review were filed.* * Cajun Elec. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Director) made a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-3145.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-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-2320.opa.html">FLORIDA MUN. POWER AGENCY V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Mun. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The primary issue in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1293a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Glenn D. With him on the brief were Michele Arington. The agreement was presumptively unlawful and PolyGram failed to rebut that presumption. I. Background Here are the facts as found by the Commission in its order and opinion of July 28. Each company was free ultimately to pursue its own marketing strategy and to continue exploiting its earlier Three Tenors concert album without limitation. Which was scheduled for August 1. After first observing (correctly) that the analysis under § 5 of the FTC Act is the same in this case as it would be under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Which begins with the proposition that conduct </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-3145.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-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1499.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mudd</SPAN> was on the brief. Ones Rivera</SPAN> were on the brief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep01/03-10660.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Holding that appellants are not entitled to a defense or indemnity under the umbrella liability policies issued to them by plaintiffcounter defendant appellee RLI Insurance Company (RLI). MSI and Brekke were listed as additional insureds on the supplementary schedules of each policy. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2710.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/914E3B1F6433FD6F88256A63007BB811/$file/0055046.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rhiannon Tanaka ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942320.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54B7C2420215507A8825734F0059BA58/$file/0555739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties were left with an arbitration award and two district court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Improv West is the founder of the Improv Comedy Club and the creator and owner of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01ED875114F282CE88256E5A00707B84/$file/0055046.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rhiannon Tanaka ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054303P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The appellants are foreign corporations that purchased monosodium glutamate (MSG) and nucleotides from the appellees in transactions that occurred outside the United States. The appellants assert that the United States market was included within the scheme because the fungible nature and worldwide flow of these products made the domestic and foreign markets interconnected. Reasonably forseeable effect(A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations. The district court concluded that 1) the FTAIA's statutory language </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other defendants then settled with Goss and are no longer parties to this lawsuit. Goss's claims against TKS were tried to a jury. (5) sufficient evidence does not support the jury's verdict that TKS dumped products onto the United States printing press market that were comparable to the products TKS sold in Japan. Because Goss's claims against TKS were pending at the time Congress repealed the 1916 Act. A typical large printing press system is over 100 feet long. Once a large printing press is installed. It oftentimes is referred to as an installed base. Is so large and expensive. This is often referred to as the installed base advantage. Price is the primary factor. The United States market for large printing press equipment is rather small. Because the market is so compact. Goss was the only domestic manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States. Goss noticed TKS was a major foreign competitor in the United States market. All of these sales were dumped. They were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053679p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this civil antitrust suit alleging a group boycott is whether plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to survive The Honorable Arthur L. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment. Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that owns and operates a hair salon and retails hair care products and professional beauty supplies. Defendant Schoeneman Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation. We have jurisdiction over this appeal of a final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3601_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/96-2704.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The remainder were tried to a verdict for the defendants. Numerous actions were brought in district courts around the country by users of bulk liquid carbon dioxide ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310799.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal under Rule 23(f). We have determined that we have no jurisdiction in this matter and shall dismiss the appeal. Is not subject to the 2 federal antitrust laws. Which is not the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxNzlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9179_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/96-2704.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The remainder were tried to a verdict for the defendants. Numerous actions were brought in district courts around the country by users of bulk liquid carbon dioxide ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1367.html">CYGNUS V. ALZA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013919P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/95-2138.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by class plaintiffs (

134 OPINION/ORDER
Hurwitz & McAloon were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendants. Arena & Cayer and Ernest Gellhorn were on brief for intervenor. No firm or person is allowed
134 OPINION/ORDER
Is a wholly owned subsidiary of IESI Corporation. Included in the purchase was an authorization ­ granted to the previous transferstation owner by the District ­ to transport waste outside the District. One stated purpose is to allow the District's board
134 OPINION/ORDER
This class action lawsuit was filed against several major airlines by travel agencies. After the class members were paid under the settlement agreement. When the case was remanded. 000 of the settlement funds was left undistributed. ASTA first argued that the travel agencies were included in the class of plaintiffs. Virgin Islands travel agencies were not class members. Virgin Islands were not part of the class. Which were affected by the caps also would be entitled to a cy pres distribution.
134 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato ry is supported by substantial evidence. An internal union report explained:
134 OPINION/ORDER
Both physician anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists are licensed in Minnesota to administer anesthesia during surgeries. Concluding that these contracts are not properly analyzed as boycotts. That plaintiffs have totally failed to demonstrate either market power or
134 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by class plaintiffs (

134 OPINION/ORDER
ACT was a non profit corporation providing clients with. Sylvan was furnishing high security computerbased testing and other educational services to its customers. The first agreement was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by both parties in August 1993 stating that ACT and NASD were entering into
134 PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC. V. NLRB

Marquess argued the cause for petitioner.

With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the

brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the

brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the

Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na

tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding

that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato

ry is supported by substantial evidence. We have seen irresponsible companies build pro

 .

jects which have caused more pollution than should be per

mitted. We are now threatened with construction moratori

ums in many counties in California.". Advocat

ing regulatory action which will force construction companies

to pay their employees a living wage. The unions

are arguing [to local governments] that the economic rewards

of development are lost when local people aren't hired at the

prevailing wage. Were delaying and ".

134 OPINION/ORDER
134 OPINION/ORDER
Goss was the major manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States for more than a century and enjoyed dominance in the United States printing press market into the late 1990s. A clawback statute is a countermeasure that enables defendants who have paid a multiple damage judgment in a foreign country to recover the multiple portion of that judgment from the plaintiff. Canada that allows companies which have paid treble damages under United States antitrust law judgments to
134 OPINION/ORDER
Background The following facts are generally undisputed. Louis NECA is a multiemployer association which negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of electrical contractors. Defendants are small owner operated electrical companies with few or no employees. While the letters of assent were in effect. The CIR is a joint industry and union arbitration panel.
134 OPINION/ORDER
1996 is corrected as follows: On page 3. Iguina Charriz were on brief for appellant. Hoag & Eliot were on brief for appellee Becton Dickinson and Company. Inc. is a distributor of a line of medical and surgical products supplied by Defendant Appellee. By threatening to discontinue a supply of a line of its products (the tying products) unless Borschow also carried its syringe line (the tied product) and dropped that of a competitor. 1 The additional distributorships were granted to Defendants Appellees Cesar Castillo. We will refer to him as Mr. Constitute the entire agreement and is the final expression of intent between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersede. No agreement or understanding varying or extending this Agreement will be binding upon either Party hereto unless in writing. Wherein this Agreement is specifically referred to. When that letter was not forthcoming. Were considering the matter. He again objected to Vallance but was told that the 4 4
134 OPINION/ORDER
The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers (
129 OPINION/ORDER
The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (
129 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES V. CHROMALLOY GAS TURBINE CORP

With him on the brief were Rhett R. Of counsel on the brief were Donald R. With him on the brief was David J. Of counsel on the brief were Michael G. It was to be listed in Pratt's engine manual as a
129 NYSTROM V. TREX COMPANY, INC. ET AL.

With him on the brief was Troy E. Mso bidi font family:
129 00-3348 -- CONNER V. SALINA REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER INC. -- 02/12/2003

Conner's federal and supplemental state law claims were dismissed. BACKGROUND

SRHC is a privately owned Kansas corporation. SRHC notified Conner that his application for reappointment to the medical staff was denied.

After exhausting all administrative remedies. Conner asserted that as health care providers are heavily regulated under Kansas law. Conner's due process claim rested on his assertion that he was deprived of protected property interests without due process of law. This deprivation was specifically manifested in an October 1995 administrative suspension which prevented him from performing certain medical procedures. Conner's freedom of speech claim was based on his argument that his suspension and application denial were meted out in retaliation for complaints he had made in relation to the quality of patient care at SRHC. SRHC asserted that it was a privately owned hospital corporation and. The district court found that the language of section 65 4929(b) was written to protect qualified health care providers against antitrust liability and noted that there were different analyses to determine the existence of the state action immunity doctrine for protection from antitrust liability as compared with the analysis to establish state action for purposes of section 1983.

129 OPINION/ORDER
American Depositary Receipts (
129 OPINION/ORDER
129 OPINION/ORDER
The Airlines argue that Chapter 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code (
129 98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION -- 06/29/1999

Is the assignee of the publicity rights of current players and handles licensing agreements authorizing the use of their identities.

In a letter to Cardtoons dated June 18. Cardtoons was

129 UNITED STATES V. GIORDANO (8/15/2001, NO. 99-12788)

Were indicted in an antitrust conspiracy.
129 OPINION/ORDER
Charging that Sandicor's MLS subscription fees were fixed at artificially high levels. Was first announced in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. That the people cannot freely inform the govThe complaint was filed as a separate action because the statute of limitations was about to run out and our mandate in the original case. Which would have officially remanded the action. Its dismissal is therefore a final judgment subject to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 7062 FREEMAN v. A purpose which would have no basis whatever in the legislative history of that Act. . . . The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. Thus also exempts bringing a lawsuit that is. 510 (1972). [2] While Noerr Pennington immunity is broad. It is not so broad as to cover all litigation:
129 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were James T. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were David W. Explaining that Iroquois had failed to carry the burden of proving that the costs were prudently incurred. Iroquois says the orders were grounded in an impermissible presumption of non recoverability and asks us to set them aside. Were also undertaken by the U.S. While the various inves tigations were still under way. Hearings on these reserved issues were held before an administrative law judge. Who determined that the legal costs were not unrecoverable per se. Observed that
129 OPINION/ORDER
Which was established to provide a network of doctors in Hawaii for a managed care health plan developed by IHM. Certain of their officers who were also named as defendants.1 We sometimes refer to these parties collectively as
129 AT&T WIRELESS PCS V. CITY OF ATLANTA (4/26/2000, NO. 99-12261)

Because the TCA's remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive to imply congressional intent to foreclose § 1983 as a remedy. Is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal wireless services within the State of Georgia. Was rejected. Nor was the denial supported by substantial evidence in a written record.

AT&. Arguing that the ruling was erroneous because TCA plaintiffs can use §§ 1983 and 1988 to enforce the TCA.

129 OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * the Trustees
129 OPINION/ORDER
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We will reverse a district court's decision to certify a class only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. P. 23(b)(3) was not met. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
129 BARD V. M3 SYSTEMS
129 UNITED STATES V. GIORDANO (8/15/2001, NO. 99-12788)

Were indicted in an antitrust conspiracy.
129 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that two Kentucky statutes have effectively prohibited Tritent from doing business in the state. The statutes were enacted to effectuate and enforce the provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). Tritent alleges that because it is The Honorable William H. Tritent alleged that the Kentucky statutes are preempted by the Sherman Act. The general theory of these lawsuits was that the cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems among the population. Lorillard are referred to in the MSA as the Original Participating Manufacturers (OPMs). Were to prevent youth smoking. Approximately 41 additional tobacco companies have joined the MSA. Are bound by the MSA's restrictions and must make payments to the settling states as set forth in the MSA. The OPMs and the SPMs are referred to as the Participating Manufacturers (PMs). Any tobacco company choosing not to participate in the MSA is referred to as a Nonparticipating Manufacturer (NPM). The amount of money that the PMs are required to annually contribute to the states varies according to several factors.
129 AT&T WIRELESS PCS V. CITY OF ATLANTA (4/26/2000, NO. 99-12261)

Because the TCA's remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive to imply congressional intent to foreclose § 1983 as a remedy. Is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide personal wireless services within the State of Georgia. Was rejected. Nor was the denial supported by substantial evidence in a written record.

AT&. Arguing that the ruling was erroneous because TCA plaintiffs can use §§ 1983 and 1988 to enforce the TCA.

129 OPINION/ORDER
With the result that the fee allowance was inadequate. Also before us are appeals from an order denying reconsideration of those orders and an order allocating the proceeds of settlement with a bankrupt defendant. With the result that the fee allowance to counsel for plaintiffs appellants is inadequate. (1) falsely claimed exemption from the 10% commission rate cap imposed on
129 OPINION/ORDER
Honegger and Gadsby & Hannah LLP were on brief for appellant. Licht & Semonoff were on brief for appellees. Is a Rhode Island company that for many years has been engaged in the production of reagents. Which are substances used in the testing or synthesis of other products. The defendants in the district court were two organizations: the College of American Pathologists (
129 OPINION/ORDER
Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as
129 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Troy E. Is withdrawn. This opinion is substituted therefor. Although it is not entirely clear from the record. That motion was apparently for all claims of U.S. Only the district court's grant of summary judgment of non infringement of claims 1 15 and 18 20 is before us. 2 patent and from an order denying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Because the district court correctly construed
129 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Troy E. Is withdrawn. This opinion is substituted therefor. Although it is not entirely clear from the record. That motion was apparently for all claims of U.S. Only the district court's grant of summary judgment of non infringement of claims 1 15 and 18 20 is before us. 2 patent and from an order denying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Because the district court correctly construed
129 OPINION/ORDER
We believe that any damage that may be done to plaintiff's professional reputation is substantially outweighed by the harm that defendants and the public would suffer if plaintiff continues to practice medicine without additional training. Because plaintiff is not likely to prevail on the merits. We have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in this case only to review the propriety of the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The preliminary injunction is dissolved. I. Plaintiff is an African American physician with a private practice in Tecumseh. He was recruited by Herrick Memorial to be its staff OB/GYN because Tecumseh did not have one in the community. See Order Granting Preliminary Injunction at 7 (
129 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The parties to this appeal are co defendants in an antitrust suit. We will reverse the order. GIRSA S.A. de C.V. are companies that manufacture a synthetic acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR). Crompton Corporation ­ are contained in four separate agreements (collectively the Related Agreements).1 This joint venture continued until December 2001. ParaTec was a party to all but one of these agreements. Although it was not a party to the Share Purchase Agreement. A class of plaintiffs has alleged that its members were injured because manufacturers of NBR conspired to fix prices in violation of federal antitrust laws. ParaTec all are co defendants.2 ParaTec filed a cross claim against Uniroyal and Crompton. Uniroyal and Crompton are responsible because they directed and controlled ParaTec through arrangements set forth in the LLC Agreement and the Related Agreements. ParaTec contends that Uniroyal and Crompton are (1) responsible for indemnifying ParaTec under the LLC Agreement. That the three claims at issue are subject to arbitration agreements because the LLC Agreement incorporates an arbitration clause found in the JVA and because the allegations underlying ParaTec's cross claims either touch on or arise directly from matters covered by arbitration provisions contained in the Related Agreements.
129 JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)

Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS).

Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance.

Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims.

129 OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to decide two significant issues. Legally documented agricultural workers have standing to sue their employers. ZIRKLE FRUIT CO. the constitutionality of supplemental subject matter jurisdiction involving a party over whom there is no independent basis for federal court jurisdiction. The purported class (
129 JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)

Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS).

Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance.

Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims.

129 OPINION/ORDER
Although appellants were held liable for nearly $600 million in damages from that conspiracy. The courts ruled that the direct claims against Penn Central were barred by its reorganization. We will reverse. I. The Penn Central bankruptcy proceeding is more than a quarter century old. The facts of the antitrust conspiracy are even older. The railroad was a wholly owned subsidiary of United States Steel Corporation (now USX Corporation) until 1989. When it was spun off. Which was given limited immunity from antitrust attack under § 5(a) of the Reed Bulwinkle Act. The claims against Penn Central were held barred by the discharge. These claims were consolidated as the
129 OPINION/ORDER
Contracts of adhesion are contracts formed with the use of\ standard form documents. Other characteristics include: (1) the document whose\ legal validity is at issue is a printed form that contains many\ terms and clearly purports to be a contract. (4) the form is presented to the adhering party\ with the representation that. The drafting party will enter into the transaction only on\ the terms contained in the document (this representation may be\ explicit or may be implicit in the situation. It is understood\ by the adherent). Is\ incorrect. Practices contained a limitations\ provision identical to the one found in the 2002/2003 versions. \ This fact will become important later in the analysis.

\ ' var WPFootnote6 = '
129 OPINION/ORDER
Factual History The Le Ax Water District is a rural water district that was created by a judicial order upon a petition filed in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas in 1980. Le Ax is an independent political subdivision of the State of Ohio. Le Ax's territory was described in the petition approved by that court. Which was formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration (
129 OPINION/ORDER
Warnock is a municipal taxpayer. The District Court held that Warnock was essentially bringing derivative claims on behalf of Allegheny County and the Sports and 2 Exhibition Authority of the City of Pittsburgh and that his allegations. The Court concluded that Warnock's injury was not fairly traceable to the conduct of defendants. His injury was that his tax dollars were allegedly being improperly spent on a disputed practice and yet the league and its clubs were not the entity that allegedly improperly distributed the tax dollars. The NFL and its clubs did not have the ability to levy and collect taxes from the citizens of Allegheny County. Warnock was suing for more than equitable relief. That even if Allegheny County was a party to the lawsuit. 3 (2) whether the plaintiff's alleged injury is of the type for which the antitrust laws were intended to provide redress. The pivotal question here is the
129 OPINION/ORDER
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We will reverse a district court's decision to certify a class only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. P. 23(b)(3) was not met. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
129 OPINION/ORDER
Was sworn in as the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee. 1 No. 06 5148 S&M Brands. S&M Brands is a tobacco product manufacturer and ITP is an importer of tobacco products. The Appellants claim that the enactment and enforcement of the Tobacco Statutes have had the effect of implementing an illegal combination or
129 OPINION/ORDER
Was a wholesaler. JMC 1 JMC is no longer in business. 3 counterclaimed for antitrust. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. Which was a tariff previously filed with the FCC by AT&T and which was referred to in the other two documents. The Addendum was never filed with the FCC despite AT&T's alleged promise to do so. JMC contends that the cards were often printed with duplicate identification numbers and incorrect instructions for foreign origination calls. The meaning of
123 OPINION/ORDER
Malaguti was on brief. Daubard were on brief. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. were on brief. P.C. were on brief. Is forbidding. Sheer bulk rarely is an accurate proxy for complexity. The facts that inform MSL's wide ranging allegations are too diffuse to shed much light at this juncture. The school's self proclaimed mission is to provide high quality. Affordable legal education to capable persons who traditionally have been shut out of the legal profession. MSL is not a fully accredited law school. The ABA is the largest national organization of the legal profession. Though the ABA does not have the power to discipline lawyers. The AALS is a non profit association of 160 law schools. Its stated objective is
123 SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)

BACKGROUND

123 OPINION/ORDER
The court concluded that Commerce Clause restrictions do not apply to the statute because the state of South Dakota is acting as a market participant in the video lottery business. The court further held that the statute The does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and that the plaintiffs have no standing to assert the Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge. plaintiffs appeal. Various forms of gambling are legal. Which is Video lottery consists of games of chance played South Dakota operates its video on a computer controlled video machine. Which are regulated by the state of South Dakota. Which are owned and operated by the state of South Dakota. Which is located in the main office of the South Dakota Lottery in Pierre. South Dakota. played or the modems attached to the Although the state does not own the video machines on which the games of chance are The South Dakota Lottery began operating in October 1989. The Supreme Court of South Dakota declared that the state was not actually running a lottery.
123 OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims against defendants against whom they have alleged no direct injury. The court rejected plaintiffs' alternative theory that they have standing without proof of direct contacts because their knowledge of the defendants' underwriting practices deterred them from making futile applications for insurance. 3 On appeal. Plaintiffs further argue that it is sufficient proof of direct contact that a plaintiff applied for homeowners insurance and was rejected. Without regard to the reason for the rejection or whether the plaintiff was made aware of that reason. That is. A plaintiff must show that he or she applied for homeowners insurance and was rejected for a reason related to the challenged underwriting criteria. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the court's findings regarding the absence of direct injury were clearly erroneous. 4 plaintiffs lack standing to claim that a different rate should have been charged. Were the product of an illegal price fixing conspiracy.
123 00-1223, BIO-TECHNOLOGY GEN. V. GENENTECH

Argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendants cross appellants.  With him on the brief were  Thomas  J. Argued for defendant/counterclaimant appellant.  With him on the brief was John E. Kidd.  Of counsel were Roy E. Is invalid for lack of enablement.  Bio Technology Gen. 36 USPQ2d 1169 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).  This action is affirmed.

123 OPINION/ORDER
Section 5 the section is corrected to read:
123 OPINION/ORDER
Games of chance are played on coin operated. The video lottery machines are privately owned. The Lottery Commission investigated the video lottery machine market and concluded there was effective competition. We are among the majority of courts and commentators who read Matsushita more broadly. The private sector participants in the South Dakota video lottery are defined by statute.
123 UNITED FOOD V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (8/22/2000, NO. 99-13476)

Is an employee health and welfare benefit plan organized under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
123 OPINION/ORDER
Numerous other plaintiffs have brought similar challenges to state statutes passed in conjunction with the multi state settlement. The precise question with which we are currently presented is a narrow one. The payments of the OPMs of which each settling state is entitled to a fixed percentage (that is. An
123 OPINION/ORDER
His son Doug is the company's current president. Although Miles was originally centered in northern Indiana. Where Miles is headquartered. 2 Mortar is a strong adhesive in which a tile is set. Grout is used to fill in the spaces between tiles. Miles's prices decreased and were lower than those offered by other TEC distributors. Complained to TEC that Miles's margins were lower than those charged by Louisville Tile. A Louisville Tile representative complained to TEC that Miles's margin on a particular TEC product was 22% while Louisville's price margin was 30%. Informed Doug Miles that TEC was dissatisfied with Miles's pricing. He conceded that
123 UNITED FOOD V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (8/22/2000, NO. 99-13476)

Is an employee health and welfare benefit plan organized under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
123 SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)

BACKGROUND

123 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
123 OPINION/ORDER
Dobson Cellular may not overcome this defect by aggregating plaintiffs' disgorgement claims (because they do not have a common and undivided interest in them) or by aggregating their punitive damages claims (because they do not have a common and undivided interest in them either). Inc. or New Par is based in. The gist of plaintiffs' claims is that the providers falsely represented to them that they would not charge for unanswered phone calls or those that generated a busy signal. As two of the named plaintiffs were customers only of the voluntarily dismissed providers (John Lunsford and Gregory Baker) and as one of the named plaintiffs filed a petition for bankruptcy (Lutricia Bradley).
123 OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the breach of the Agreement by Koenig was not material and did not justify the forfeiture of all benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the judgment entered by the District Court and remand for further proceedings. Koenig was promoted to Corporate Vice President and became one of ADP's top thirty officers in a work force of approximately 37. ADP shall have. In a capacity which is the same or similar to any capacity in which [he] was involved during the last two years of . . . employment by ADP.
123 MONSANTO COMPANY V. MCFARLING

Argued for plaintiff appellee.  Also on the brief was Joseph C. The district court held that a liquidated damages provision in the Technology Agreement was valid and enforceable under Missouri law and entered a judgment in the amount of $780. ).  EPSPS is necessary for the conversion of sugars into amino acids and thus for growth in many plants and weeds. 

Monsanto also markets ROUNDUP READYŽ genetic modification technology.  In soybean seeds. The ROUNDUP READYŽ technology operates by inserting the gene sequence for a variant of EPSPS that is not affected by the presence of glyphosate but that still performs the sugar conversion function required for cell growth.  Thus. Version of EPSPS that is rendered ineffective in the presence of the glyphosate in ROUNDUPŽ herbicide.

123 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)

We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
123 OPINION/ORDER
The government challenges the sentence on three principal grounds: (1) the sentence differs substantially from the advisory Guidelines range and is unreasonably low. (3) the district court's finding of an inability to pay a fine is clearly erroneous and the failure to impose any fine is unreasonable. The requirement that a district judge provide a written statement of reasons for imposing a non Guidelines sentence1 outside the advisory 1 A non Guidelines sentence is a sentence that is
123 INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA V. FERC

Eastment argued the cause for petitioners Opposing Lifting of Rate Cap.
123 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)

We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
123 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Richard S. With him on the brief were Ronald E. With him on the brief were Richard G. LLC (
123 OPINION/ORDER
The government challenges the sentence on three principal grounds: (1) the sentence differs substantially from the advisory Guidelines range and is unreasonably low. (3) the district court's finding of an inability to pay a fine is clearly erroneous and the failure to impose any fine is unreasonable. The requirement that a district judge provide a written statement of reasons for imposing a non Guidelines sentence1 outside the advisory 1 A non Guidelines sentence is a sentence that is
123 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
123 OPINION/ORDER
Which was co lead class counsel. Which were defendants. Delta Airlines issued a press release announcing that it was cutting commissions paid to travel agents by placing a $50 cap on domestic roundtrip tickets and a $25 cap on domestic one way tickets
123 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John P. With him on the briefs were John J. With them on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Steve Stojic. With him on the briefs were E. With them on the briefs were Bruce F. Mallory were on the briefs for petitioners and intervenors. With him on the briefs were Joshua B. With him on the briefs were C. Myers were on the brief for intervenors in support of Lifting the Rate Cap. Corman were on the brief for intervenor Interstate Pipeline. With him on the brief were Peter G. Lewis and Niki Kuckes were on the brief for intervenors Amoco Production Company. With the following exceptions: we reverse and remand with respect to the five year cap on the mandatory right of first refusal and in part with respect to the limitations on pre arranged releases (is sues V.A.1 and VIII in the Table of Contents). Waiver of the rate ceilings for short term capacity releases by shippers The heart of Order No. 637 was the Commission's decision to lift for a two year period the cost based rate ceilings that it previously imposed on short term
123 OPINION/ORDER
2006) OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM Solange Chadda appeals from the dismissal of her pro se complaint by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 We will affirm. Our review of the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The district courts have jurisdiction over federal questions. Actions involving parties of diverse citizenship and a Chadda's initial untimely notice of appeal was docketed at C.A. The two appeals have been consolidated. 2 1 minimum amount in controversy. Which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent
116 OPINION/ORDER
Kramer is an attorney who represented The Industry Network System. Kramer believes he is entitled to a lien to ensure that his fees will be paid and argues that the district court failed to recognize a lien. These matters are now before us for review pursuant to the appellant's notice of appeal filed March 7. We will affirm. To which Kramer contends he is entitled for defending his client from counterclaims. (2) whether the district court should have insisted that Kramer be paid before new counsel replaced him. Those issues are waived. We will consider it waived. I. The underlying case was filed by Network and Elliot Fineman. This verdict has been appealed and is now pending before another panel of this court. Kramer then filed a motion contending that he was entitled to a statutory attorney's lien for work done defending the plaintiffs from Armstrong's counterclaims. He avers that all predicates to his claim are satisfied because his fee is not contingent upon Network's success in its antitrust case against Armstrong.
116 LAKER AIRWAYS V. BRITISH AIRWAYS (7/30/1999, NO. 98-4229)

Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation.

II. Slot Allocation Process

The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.

116 GLOBETROTTER SOFTWARE, INC., ET AL. V. ELAN COMPUTER GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Argued for plaintiff cross appellant and third party defendant appellee.  With him
116 OPINION/ORDER
116 OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Before O'BRIEN. Which is located in Overland Park. Which is also located in Pennsylvania. The buildings should have had a concrete slab . . . as described in the foundation manual.
116 OPINION/ORDER
The opinion of the court is reported at Community Publishers. The private plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss these appeals as moot. That motion is denied. An issue raised by NAT and Donrey is whether the District Court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs to the private plaintiffs. The award of fees and costs can be sustained only if the private parties are found to be prevailing parties. 63 2 1 Plaintiffs' theory of the case. Is that the acquisition of the Times by NAT likely would have anticompetitive effects in the local daily newspaper business. The facts of the case are described in detail in the District Court's lengthy opinion. Was required to show injury or
116 OPINION/ORDER
Urmy LLP were on brief for appellant.
116 OPINION/ORDER
Although Laker sought a transfer of slots at the time this case was before the district court. Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation. Slot Allocation Process The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.2 The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have signed two bilateral treaties which control many aspects of the transatlantic industry. The gravamen of Laker's complaint is that BA conspired with ACL to prevent Laker from being relief. The coordinator is then responsible for the allocation of slots. The coordinator is to act in
116 TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC
116 OPINION/ORDER
Wong was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment. Were overbroad. Were fruit of the poisonous tree. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Wong initially told police that he and Sin were married. They were not. Sin was pregnant at the time of her disappearance. The polygraph results showed that Wong was over 99% deceptive when he answered
116 GTE DIRECTORIES PUBLISHING CORP. V. TRIMEN AMERICA, INC.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > GTE Directories Publishing Corp. v. Background</i><p> <p> GTE Directories Publishing Corporation (GTEDPC) is a publisher of yellow pages advertising </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991010.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that the appellees have engaged in a variety of activities constituting unfair trade practices. Appellant Whitfield alleges that the district court committed reversible error when it granted summary judgment to all appellees on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield's evidence of damages was too speculative to support a jury verdict. Appellant also appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court to all appellees on the claim for civil conspiracy on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield was required to demonstrate that the appellees conspired for the purposes of injuring Whitfield in particular and on Whitfield's cause of action seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Candace Pratt (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1078.html">INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES V. CAT<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022432p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with a number of questions concerning certain requirements of the Consumer Leasing Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2342.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> were on brief. Miller</SPAN> were on brief. Alleging that it was a price fixing purchasing pool. </EM>OSF was tasked with designing and marketing a UNIX based operating system known as OSF/1 that would become an industry standard for UNIX users. Which essentially offered competing suppliers the opportunity to submit their products to be integrated into the OSF/1 operating system.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> 1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.<strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>I</strong></center> <p> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4229.man.html">LAKER AIRWAYS V. BRITISH AIRWAYS (7/30/1999, NO. 98-4229)<BR></A><BR> Laker also contends that the district court should not have applied the act of state doctrine to the actions of ACL because the government of the United Kingdom has no role in slot allocation.</P> <P><CENTER>II. Slot Allocation Process</EM></P> <P> The transatlantic airline industry is a highly regulated business controlled. Through negotiations among national governments.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under §§ 2(d) and (e) and not § 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1099.html">GENENTECH, INC. V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/003076.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The complaint also charges that the individual officers and directors of Mylan are liable for its misconduct because they are control persons within the meaning of section 20 of the 1934 Act. Holding that disclosure of the exclusive supply contracts would not have significantly altered the total mix of information available to the reasonable investor. That therefore the failure to disclose specifically those contracts was not material. The raw materials essential to the manufacture of these two drugs are produced solely by Profarmaco S.r.l. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-8005.htm">00-8005 -- VEILE V. BRYANT -- 07/30/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/94-2479.opa.html">GTE DIRECTORIES PUBLISHING CORP. V. TRIMEN AMERICA, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>GTE Directories Publishing Corp. v. Background</i><p> <p> GTE Directories Publishing Corporation (GTEDPC) is a publisher of yellow pages advertising </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1508.html">B.BRAUN MED. INC. V. ABBOT LAB & NP MED<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96o1172.html">SPRAYTEX V. DJS&T<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/003424p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As will be seen. We summarily will resolve the substantive issue before us which we find not to be difficult. Have sought indemnification from the approximately 50 appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-7097a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard J. With him on the brief were Robert F. The issues presented are whether the District Court may assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether venue is proper in the District of Columbia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7220a.html">RAFFERTY SCOTT J. V. NYNEX CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/033339p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's order. The wholesale market for electrical energy is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1432.html">SEAL-FLEX, INC. V. ATHLETIC TRACK AND COURT CONSTRUCTION<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were William J. Of counsel was Richard W. Inc. is the assignee of U.S. Mats constructed according to the claimed method are often used as running tracks. First applying a liquid latex binder to the previously spread rubber layer in sufficient quantity to coat substantially all rubber particles of said layer then air drying said applied mixture until substantially no liquid is visible. Air drying the binder followed by the spreading of a uniform layer of rubber over the preceding layers until the approximate desired thickness for the mat is achieved. <p> <p> (emphasis added).<p> <p> According to this method. Each of its shareholders is licensed to practice this patented process. <p> AT&. The counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid. CC maintained that the Eaton Rapids method was not its customary track construction method. CC uses a material to perform the identical function and that the material used for performing that function was the same as or equivalent to the corresponding materials disclosed in the specification. <p> At the conclusion of the liability trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/013329np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was filed by a New Zealand company and three Australian companies (collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/051101P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a corporation owned entirely by Suren Chaganti ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/001816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The CWA and Bell are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2733.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monospace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Similar nationwide claims were consolidated by a Multidistrict Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1758.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 2. Insert space between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/002520.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the Auction in this Case Permissibl e? 111 D. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY These are consolidated appeals from the District Court's approval of a $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action brought against Cendant Corporation and its auditors. Both the settlement and the fee award are challenged in these appeals. The enormous size of both the settlement and the fee award presages a new generation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5250a.html">KIMBERLIN BRETT C. V. DOJ<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2214.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 38. Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for Computer Scientists. Cannon and Baker Keaton Seibel & Cannon were on brief for Computer Software Industry Association. Harrison and Morris Manning & Martin were on brief for Chicago Computer Society. Diane Marie O'Malley and Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy were on brief for Software Entrepreneurs' Forum. Choy was on brief for American Committee for Interoperable Systems. Zimmerman were on brief for Copyright Law Professors. Were on brief for appellee. Miller were on brief for Apple Computer. Gorman were on brief for Adobe Systems. Were on brief for Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association. Circuit Judge. decide whether a computer menu command hierarchy is copyrightable subject matter. Was infringed by defendant appellant Borland International. Background Background Lotus 1 2 3 is a spreadsheet program that enables users to perform accounting functions electronically on a computer. Allows users to write what are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50811.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whereby rental tapes are made available to Blockbuster for a low initial price in exchange for a portion of rental revenues and a long term commitment to purchase all the movies released by each studio. Are independent video retailers in competition with Blockbuster. The home video rental market was struggling. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Had sufficient copies of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5132a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Charles Williamson Day. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Employees who believe they have been discriminated against must first consult an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory acts. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). Arguing that petitioners' claims were untimely the individual claims because petitioners had failed to contact a Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory acts. In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. While that case was pending before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Is that defendants conspired with the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA). That there is a dispute of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy between the NFSA and the Union. Judge Harvey held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3150.htm">96-3150 -- LAW V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION -- 01/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-6186.htm">03-6186 -- MISKOVSKY V. GRAY -- 08/27/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Grover Lee Miskovsky. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Gray are based on a court ordered seizure of a trial transcript (the <em>Gregg</em> transcript<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/00-1012b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTQ1OTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-4598-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply in cases where arbitration is required by principles of equitable estoppel. More than twenty class action complaints have been filed against VISA and MasterCard the two largest credit card networks and their member banks (collectively. The cases were 265 F. The court held that: To (i) cardholders whose cardholder agreements contained arbitration clauses as of the date on which they became putative class members were subject to arbitration. (ii) those cardholders were also required to arbitrate their claims against non signatory banks under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. (iii) the cardholders' claimed defense against arbitration that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable as the result of an illegal conspiracy could not defeat a motion to compel arbitration where the complaint had not alleged an antitrust claim based on that defense. Appellants acknowledged that they were not a signatory to any express arbitration agreement with the appellees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1619.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carroll and Blish & Cavanagh were on brief. Snow & Hahn were on brief. Baccarat is a subsidiary of Compagnie des Cristalleries de Baccarat. It is the exclusive distributor in the United States of this aristocratic product line. Is generated through catalog and telemarketing sales. L.L.C. are all named plaintiffs herein. For simplicity's sake we refer to them collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/954253P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the appeal in this case is moot. While there are several small rural hospitals near Dubuque. The closest comparable hospitals to Mercy and Finley are regional hospitals located between 70 and 100 miles away in Waterloo. Mercy and Finley began pursuing a partnership which would have merged the two entities into Dubuque Regional Hospital Systems. While Finley was estimated to have 124 staffed beds and an average daily census of 63. Had between 25 and 99 licensed beds and an average daily census of between 3 and 12.4. 44 2 merger would have anticompetitive effects and denied the requested injunction. Key to the district court's conclusion was its finding that the United States had not proven that the relevant geographic market did not include the Regional hospitals. Then the court would have rejected Mercy's and Finley's argument that efficiencies stemming from the merger justified any anticompetitive effects. This Court described the relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes: The determination of the relevant market is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/995422.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have fostered the mistaken impression that Smirnoff vodka is made in Russia and is the same product that was produced in Russia and sold to the czar before the Russian Revolution. Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to present a case or controversy that was ripe for decision within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution and that. Even if the plaintiffs' claims were ripe. Perhaps the greatest recognition he received was being named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1164.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McArdle were on brief for appellants. Smith & Lancaster were on brief for appellees. On the ground that it was barred by res judicata. Was a state court suit brought by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants and decided in favor of the latter. The procedural history of the two cases is complex and intertwined but a brief summary will suffice at the outset. Were engaged in a specialized form of wholesale distribution of goods. While the state case was proceeding. The new federal claims were based. The borrowers say that the new claims were asserted in a separate action in a different court because at that time the borrowers held the view (contrary to two circuit decisions) that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims under section 1972.1 1Two weeks before filing the federal complaint. Shortly after the federal complaint was filed. When the borrowers responded that the federal claims were not being asserted in the state case. They included as a defense the assertion that the borrowers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E48BAF56D43F45EB88256E5A00707C16/$file/0015101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/02-7057b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED that the petition be denied. This claim is baseless. We explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E50C2F69B7569CCC88256E5A00707C58/$file/9915605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The government's petition for rehearing is granted. Is withdrawn. Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1135.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nereida Melendez Rivera and McConnell Valdes were on brief for defendant Volvo Car Corporation. Daniel Harris and Law Offices of Daniel Harris were on brief for plaintiffs Luis Bonilla. We are asked to examine numerous rulings and decisions in a complex civil suit brought under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs are a class of individuals and corporations who. The cars were imported to Puerto Rico by Trebol Motors Distributor Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98631F52138F1F8988256BBA005B26A7/$file/0135494.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us now is the objectors' appeal from that order. I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S PERCENTAGE CALCULATION [1] The district court found that the settlement fund was the product of the successful claim for benefits under Microsoft's 7008 VIZCAINO v. The percentage of recovery approach is used in calculating fees in common fund cases. We will do the same. The `benchmark' award is 25 percent of the recovery obtained. Objectors contend that the award is nevertheless excessive. Arguing that the court erred in failing to take into account that this is a megafund case to which it should have applied what objectors call the increase decrease rule. Was referred to the SPP administrator and subsequently to the plan's administrative committee. The issue was ready for judicial review by the district court but had not been decided when the settlement of all claims was reached. 2 VIZCAINO v. Fund size is one relevant circumstance to which courts must refer. Stating: We agree with the district court that there is no necessary correlation between any particular percentage and a reasonable fee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1441c.html">ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISES V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine M. With him on the brief were Mark C. Argued the cause for appellee. </p> <p>With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James D. </p> <p>Ellis and Martin E. The order allows the merged company to avoid statuto </p> <p>ry resale obligations on certain advanced telecommunications </p> <p>services by providing those services through a subsidiary. </p> <p>We vacate.</p> <p>I.</p> <p>As all observers of the American telecommunications sys </p> <p>tem are well aware. </p> <p>the Bell System's local exchange operations were severed </p> <p>from its other operations and split geographically among </p> <p>seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Ameri </p> <p>tech and SBC were both RBOCs and provided various states </p> <p>with local exchange and exchange access services. The physical infrastructure by which wire based tele </p> <p> </p> <p>* Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the </p> <p>time of oral argument.</p> <p> . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1807.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Warner & Stackpole LLP were on brief for appellant. Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellees. Even if they were assumed to have occurred. Were not a material cause of Addamax's failure in the line of business at issue. We begin with a statement of those background facts that are more or less undisputed. Addamax was created by Dr. Unix is a very popular operating system for larger computers. Security software is a component that can be used with the operating system to restrict outside access to sensitive information and to restrict a particular user to information consistent with that user's security classification. While Addamax was trying to produce its security software. A different struggle was developing between AT&T the inventor of Unix and a number of major computer manufacturers. Other hardware manufacturers professed to fear that AT&T was trying to establish a single dominant version of Unix. At least one of OSF's professed objectives was to develop an alternative Unix operating system. While OSF 1 was still being developed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0408p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After he failed to convince the district court that the statute impinged upon his First Amendment rights on the grounds that it is vague and overbroad and that it denied him due process under the Fifth Amendment by failing to give reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct. The crux of his argument on appeal is that he should not have been charged under § 201(c)(3) in the absence of evidence that the testimony he proposed to provide was. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. Pertinent information taken from the plea agreement entered into by the defendant and the government indicates that defendant Blaszak was at the time of these events a licensed attorney in Ohio with primarily a real estate practice. RE/MAX was the plaintiff in an antitrust case pending in federal court. Blaszak's proposal was to testify concerning a taped telephone conversation and to offer as evidence a memorandum that he described as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/01-7115b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031225.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asensio maintains that it specializes in identifying companies in which fraud or hype have assertedly inflated the stock's prospects or price. CCSI was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/d2ddf595cb19d39288256a9c005a3546/$FILE/0015101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/e48baf56d43f45eb88256e5a00707c16/$FILE/0015101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1799p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal primarily presents an issue that divides sister Courts of Appeals and is of first impression in our court namely. Dismissed the remaining defamation action on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently directed toward the plaintiff so that a jury could reasonably conclude that they referred to him. Our standard of reviewing the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law. Are to leave regulation and taxation of the insurance business to the states and to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1441c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine M. With him on the brief were Mark C. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James D. I. As all observers of the American telecommunications sys tem are well aware. The Bell System's local exchange operations were severed from its other operations and split geographically among seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Ameri tech and SBC were both RBOCs and provided various states with local exchange and exchange access services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21805F090F35B46A882571C4007CB64E/$file/0455536.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Johnson Controls was engaged in a bid rigging scheme in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. 2 a draft of which was included with the letters. If any state funds are involved. If political subdivision funds are exclusively involved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-1583a.html">SO PACIFIC TRANSP CO V. ICC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1871_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is unjustifiable. The request is granted. The district judge and bankruptcy judge are directed to vacate the injunction immediately. Just in case there is any further delay. The lessors are at liberty to exercise their statutory and contractual entitlements. The principal aim of the Motion is to enforce a second conclusion of our opinion: that United's adversary action. Is legally untenable. This was an alternative holding. Not dicta as the Creditors' Committee and the bankruptcy judge have characterized it. Our view of §1110 and our view of the antitrust laws are independent (and independently sufficient) grounds of decision with respect to the preliminary injunction. Our resolution of the antitrust claim is the principal reason why. The parties' dispute about the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege is no longer relevant. On May 20 the bankruptcy judge denied United's motion on the theory that our analysis is dictum. Neither option is palatable. As we have said. Our disposition was an alternative holding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/255B20297A94A63C88256A16006274B3/$file/9915605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. 3496 I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-3060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413740.rem.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lora Sisson are current or former hourly employees of defendantappellant Mohawk Industries. The plaintiffs also alleged that Mohawk was unjustly enriched by the lower wages it paid. Whether plaintiffs state proximately caused injuries to business or property by alleging that the hourly wages they voluntarily accepted were too low. This case is now before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court. I. BACKGROUND 3 Mohawk is the second largest carpet and rug manufacturer in the United States and has over 30. Mohawk employees have traveled to the United States Border. To recruit undocumented aliens that recently have entered the United States in violation of federal law. These employees and other persons have transported undocumented aliens from these border towns to North Georgia so that those aliens may procure employment at Mohawk. Have provided housing to these illegal workers upon their arrival in North Georgia and have helped them find illegal employment with Mohawk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/002566.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Appellants in this case are a number of self professed conservative. The District Court granted summary judgment to Kidder and Miller and held that the Appellants' claims were barred by the applicable four year statute of limitations. The Appellants contend that the court erred in three major respects: It incorrectly concluded that the Appellants were injured at the time they purchased the securities. It erred in holding that the Appellants were on inquiry notice of their injuries no later than early 1990. We will affirm. The plan was to acquire commercial real estate properties in the Sunbelt. The bulk of the return for investors was to come from appreciation in the properties. 3 Kidder prepared and distributed to its brokers a prospectus. The crux of the Appellants' claims is that Kidder fraudulently suggested that the funds were low risk. There are numerous corporate defendants in this case. We will refer to all the Defendants/Appellees collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1151a.html">PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP V. FERC<BR></A><BR> Bushee argued the cause for petitioners and supporting intervenors.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615516.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Plaintiffs Appellants are Georgia residents and subscribers of defendant Comcast Corporation (Comcast). Arguing the subscribers' individual claims were governed by written arbitration agreements. The class action waiver was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable as a matter of law. The court found the Arbitration Provision was binding and the class action waiver 4 was not unconscionable. The issue presented is whether the Arbitration Provision's class action waiver is unconscionable under Georgia law and thus unenforceable as a matter of law.2 If it is. Because we conclude the class action waiver clause is unenforceable. Thus the Arbitration Provision in its entirety is unenforceable. We look to state law to determine whether a provision in a contract is unenforceable. The entire Arbitration Provision is unenforceable. Written agreements to arbitrate a dispute arising out of a transaction involving commerce are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIwMjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2024-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that even if we were to recognize that the ordinances burden interstate commerce. We would find that the burden imposed is not clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits conferred by the ordinances. We are called upon to decide whether a non discriminatory municipal flow control regulation that does not place non local firms at a competitive disadvantage. The municipal scheme at issue requires that the garbage generated by local households and businesses be delivered to facilities which are owned and operated by a public corporation. The trash is then delivered by a private contractor to a designated landfill site. Or is reused or recycled. Inc. is a New York not for profit corporation comprised of solid waste management companies. Each of the remaining plaintiffs is a New York business entity that was a member of the United Haulers Association operating in Oneida and Herkimer Counties at the time this suit was filed. The Authority charges a per ton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3606.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Trompler is a nonunion machine shop that employs 30 workers in three shifts. The second shift runs from 2 to 10 p.m. and is staffed by eight workers. There is disagreement over what they told her. That it was that they had three complaints about the second shift supervisor: that he had failed to prevent sexual harassment of one of the six workers by another (the one who. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0831990EEA712D45882573470051BA3C/$file/0574592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321 and 2342(5). I. A The STB is a successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1344.htm">99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3967.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who have been or are now employed at IBP's meat processing plant in Joslin. They appeal from the district court's decision that their claim should have been submitted to the National Labor Relations Board rather than a court. The court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79237C43F065F2C188256E5A00707AA6/$file/9915605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. 3496 I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-7025a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A464A339C21AF0488256CBB005A747C/$file/0016778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issue in this case is whether the principle distinguishing those two cases makes the grape growers more like the nectarine. Dissemination of information </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/misc670o.html">TIMOTHY TAYLOR V. PPG INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR> Taylor.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/023843P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The companies are referred to as local exchange carriers or LECs. Is also a LEC to the extent that it supplies local telephone service in many Iowa communities. Qwest is not a member of INS. No longer was the local market to be viewed as a natural monopoly with only one authorized provider of local telephone service. Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. The state commissions in regulating local telephone markets and the competing providers of telephone services in those markets is at the heart of this case. There are two types of charges which one carrier can extract from another for the provision of telecommunication services. One of the primary purposes of the 1996 Act was to promote competition in the local telephone service market. The amount an ILEC can charge for allowing a competitor to use its infrastructure to deliver a local call is to be determined by an interconnection agreement negotiated (or imposed by arbitration) between the ILEC and the interconnecting carrier that has been approved by the state commission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1151a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Bar bara K. On the brief were Cynthia A. Nelson were on the brief for intervenor Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. The Com mission may hold a hearing to determine whether the pipeline has met its burden to show that the amended rates and charges are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3844.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cold war was over but the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995555.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1998.1 Several actions were filed as a result of this disclosure. The PRIDES litigation was subsequently consolidated with the other pending Cendant actions. The District Court ruled that separate lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were to represent the interests of the PRIDES shareholders. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1441a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine M. With him on the brief were Mark C. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James D. I. As all observers of the American telecommunications sys tem are well aware. The Bell System's local exchange operations were severed from its other operations and split geographically among seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Ameri tech and SBC were both RBOCs and provided various states with local exchange and exchange access services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E06BB9E832E19CD88256AAA00577161/$file/9915605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The government's petition for rehearing is granted. Is withdrawn. Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0544n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were he not Romeo call'd. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1441a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine M. With him on the brief were Mark C. Argued the cause for appellee. </P> <P>With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James D. </P> <P>Ellis and Martin E. The order allows the merged company to avoid statuto </P> <P>ry resale obligations on certain advanced telecommunications </P> <P>services by providing those services through a subsidiary. </P> <P>We vacate.</P> <P> I.</P> <P> As all observers of the American telecommunications sys </P> <P>tem are well aware. </P> <P>the Bell System's local exchange operations were severed </P> <P>from its other operations and split geographically among </P> <P>seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Ameri </P> <P>tech and SBC were both RBOCs and provided various states </P> <P>with local exchange and exchange access services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5360a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was David C. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether the electronic appointment calendars of six United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTA2MDlfc28ucGRm/05-0609_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/953396P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Read decided his MXC work schedule was too rigorous. Most were rejected. Renewed the contract for a second year. was being exploited and he intended to launch his own practice. the way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052651np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment. The background and factual allegations underlying this cause of action are well known by the parties and need not be detailed here. The District Court found that these defendants lacked sufficient contacts with Pennsylvania to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them given the fact that they were all Delaware residents. That the extent of any involvement on their part was limited to Seubert's representation of Marjorie Lamb in divorce proceedings before the Delaware Family Court. Burns' antitrust claim was likewise dismissed since he failed to allege an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Seth P. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph C. Of counsel was Alan B. This is the third time this case has been before us. Holding that the liquidated damages provision in the parties' contract was an unenforceable penalty. A technique that allows for much more efficient weed control than is possible with unmodified plants. Farmers promised not to replant seeds that were produced from the purchased seeds or to supply those seeds to others for replanting. McFarling also would have had to pay a seed company between $19 and $22 for each bag of the seed that he purchased. Contending that the patent misuse defense was given new life by 05 1570. McFarling again moved to limit the damages award to what he contended was Monsanto's $6.50 per bag established royalty for use of its patented technology. 1598 5 seeds) are nearly identical copies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1168p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul's obligation to defend is also based on the comprehensive general liability coverage it purchased from St. I. Facts and Procedural History VNA is a non profit corporation engaged in the business of providing home health care and related services throughout the Delaware Valley. Agencies such as VNA typically provide home health care to patients who are discharged from hospitals and require follow up care. Which are required as a condition of participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to transfer or refer their patients to appropriate facilities. In February 1993 VNA was sued by AHS. Paul was required to defend VNA in the lawsuit brought by AHS and a judgment for all monies expended by VNA and all liabilities incurred but not yet paid by VNA with respect to the defense of the AHS suit. The district court held that VNA is not entitled to coverage under the commercial general liability portion of the policy. After the notices of appeal were filed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Our review of the district court's grant and denial of the summary judgment motions is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2DDF595CB19D39288256A9C005A3546/$file/0015101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-2171.htm">99-2171 -- U.S. V. CONCHA -- 12/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002257.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6049.htm">01-6049 -- SALLY BEAUTY CO. INC. V. BEAUTYCO INC. -- 09/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Marianna is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for movants. Were on brief for defendants. Brewster</SPAN> were on brief for plaintiff. Were on brief for defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-4126.htm">02-4126 -- SALT LAKE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO. V. AT&T CORP. -- 02/24/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1133.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were John M. Of counsel was Heather F. Because the Board correctly determined that the applied for mark is the generic designation for that variety of grass seed and hence is not entitled to trademark registration. Applicant had previously designated the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-6003.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Joan M. Who was employed by GAO. Ordering GAO to increase Davis' performance appraisals and awarding Davis back pay in the amount she would have received had the appraisals been conducted properly. Which was substantially higher than the $150.00 hourly rate Willis actually charged Davis. The Administrative Judge reduced the total number of hours Davis claimed for Willis' work by 20 percent because of the inconsistent quality of Willis' pretrial filings and the fact that the majority of Davis' claims were ultimately rejected. If he or she is the prevailing party. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 755(a). DISCUSSION The necessary threshold question in this case is whether Willis has standing to appeal the Board's decision to this court. Willis' primary theory of standing is that she has a right to receive fee payments under the statute separate and apart from her client's right to fees. This theory of standing is essential to Willis' claim for fees for the trial work fees that were not included in Davis' fee request. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1277.html">SPENCER ABRAHAM V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc Johnston</u>. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Scott James Preston</u>. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1238.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Of counsel was John A. With him on the brief were Kelsey I. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief was Charles F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were James A. With him on the brief were J. Of 2counsel was Herbert C. This is an interlocutory appeal by Cordis Corp. from a decision of the U.S. We agreed that the interlocutory appeal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/992055.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates an art gallery on North Latches Lane in Lower Merion Township. The Indenture provides that the Foundation's purpose is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1465.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William F. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief was Kenneth B. With her on the brief were Steven P. With him on the brief were Kathi A. This appeal was submitted after oral argument on May 3. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings that the The real party in interest is Monsanto Technology LLC. Which is owned by the Monsanto Company. 1 claimed invention lacks a specific and substantial utility and that the '643 application does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention. The claimed sequences are commonly referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-6179.wpd.html">BISWELL STORES, INC. V. INDIAN NATIONS COMMUNICATIONS OF CUSHING INC.<BR></A><BR> A verdict was rendered in favor of defendants on plaintiff's remaining claims. Because plaintiff's substantial rights were not affected by the cross examination of its witness and because the court did not err by excluding the rebuttal testimony of plaintiff's expert witness. 1513 (10th (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. If there is error in the admission or exclusion of evidence. We will set aside a jury verdict only if the error prejudicially affects a substantial right of a party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0940p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An accounting firm which is a Delaware corporation. As a matter of convenience we will refer to both defendants as Whisman. Thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them supplemental to its federal question jurisdiction over the FLSA claim.[fn1] We set forth the facts and the aspects of the procedural history necessary for resolution of the jurisdictional issue.[fn2] Lyon began working as a bookkeeper for Whisman in January 1988 on an at will basis for hourly wages. She charges that the payment was late and was for less than the promised amount. We usually will call supplemental jurisdiction. Since the district court did not have diversity jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Consequently following oral argument we directed the parties to file briefs on this point and they have done so. Which states: in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction. The district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1459.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 916 was not infringed. Because Appellants have not shown that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Lockformer's accused device employs an adhesive. BACKGROUND Lockformer is an Illinois company that manufactures and sells roll forming equipment for making insulating glass units ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-4984.eb_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-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055460np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs' claim was based on four grounds: newly discovered evidence. For the reasons set forth below we will affirm the District Court's order.2 The Defendant Banks include Bank of America Corp. The predicate acts of the RICO claim are mail and wire fraud. We noted that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/95-9552.man.html">UNITED STATES V. KUKU<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Brenda Kuku (Kuku) was convicted of offenses arising from her participation in a conspiracy to unlawfully produce social security cards and sell them to illegal aliens. We address two issues raised by Kuku on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in permitting a co defendant witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege after the co defendant entered a guilty plea but before the co defendant was sentenced. Applicants over age 18 are required to have a personal interview.<p> Kuku used her position at the SSA to engage in a conspiracy in which social security cards were unlawfully produced and sold to illegal immigrants. Kuku's role in the conspiracy was to approve the applications filed on behalf of the solicited illegal aliens. The applications were not accompanied by the required documentation. Social security cards were mailed to the illegal aliens at various in state addresses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2715.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Will &. Emery</SPAN> were on brief. Weld LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Reno P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Field LLP</SPAN> were on brief. All claims were dismissed after discovery. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E750FCD4A46536CA88256EEB0078A2E0/$file/0335207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case involves contract related claims against energy wholesalers by a public utility which contends it was forced to pay exorbitant prices for electricity. The utility's case was dismissed by the district court because its claims were found to be preempted. Washington ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2026.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unfair or deceptive\ acts or practices in trade or commerce are hereby declared\ unlawful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0919p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the Republic of the Philippines was harassing witnesses who had testified against it in a suit it had brought in federal court in New Jersey. We will reverse. The district court determined that all but two of the counts against Westinghouse were subject to international arbitration. Most of the Republic's claims against Westinghouse were referred to arbitration under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.[fn1] In the remaining two counts. Huge foreign loans were incurred to pay for the project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing