ANDERSON ET AL.

v.

EMPIRE SEAFOODS, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (35 total)

• Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992)
  …osts’ ” unless “ ‘the judgment recovered was insignificant in comparison to the amount actually sought and actually amounted to a victory for the defendant’ ” (quoting Lichter Foundation, Inc. v. Welch, 269 F. 2d 142, 146 (CA6 1969))), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 983 (1968); Esso Standard (Libya), Inc. v. SS Wisconsin, 54 F. R. D. 26, 27 (SD Tex. 1971) (“Circumstances justifying denial of costs to the prevailing party [exist] where the judgment recovered was insignificant in comparison to the amount actually so…
• Woods Exploration & Producing Co., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. OF Am., 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …require evidence of a specific intent to destroy competition or to build a monopoly. Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 1953, 345 U.S. 594, 626, 73 S.Ct. 872, 97 L.Ed. 1277; Lewis v. Pennington, 6 Cir. 1968, 400 F. 2d 806, cert. denied, 1968, 393 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct. 450, 21 L.Ed.2d 444; United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp., 2 Cir. 1961, 291 F. 2d 563. There currently exists some dispute over whether either attempts to monopolize or conspiracies to monopolize require proof of the relevant mark…
• Consol. Express, Inc. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 602 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1979)
  …gaining process to cases where predatory intent can be shown. Accord, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. v. Ross Aviation, Inc., 504 F. 2d 896, 903 (5th Cir. 1974) (“concerted purpose”); Lewis v. Pennington, 400 F. 2d 806, 814 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct. 450, 21 L.Ed.2d 444 (1968) (“predatory intent”); Meltzer, Labor Unions, Collective Bargaining and the Antitrust Laws, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. 659, 720-21 (1965); 1 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law, H 229e at 211 (1977). Such a standard would…