HOLDER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

v.

BANKS

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 690 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …ception, it did list examples of activity which might come within the exception.17 In Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 93 S.Ct. 1022, 35 L.Ed.2d 359 [*1253] (1973), on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn. 1973), aff’d, 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974), Otter Tail Power monopolized the distribution of power to various communities. Otter Tail prevented those communities from creating their own marketing organizations by instituting and supporting litigation designed to preven…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 601 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1979)
  …put in a new bottle labelled “overall scheme.”15 [*995] Finally, this is not an Otter Tail case. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 93 S.Ct. 1022, 35 L.Ed.2d 359, on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), aff’d mem., 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974). Handgards has neither pleaded nor proved that Ethicon engaged in a pattern of baseless, repetitive litigation designed to prevent meaningful access to an adjudicatory tribunal. See generally Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Codding, 615 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1980)
  …within the sham exception to the Noerr doctrine as defined by the Supreme Court in California Transport . ..” United States v. Otter Tail Power Company, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973). This was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court. 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974). The Supreme Court decision which is most directly applicable to the present case is Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977), where the Court interpreted how the sham exception appl…