KING, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.

v.

PRETERM, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Planned Parenthood OF Central AND Northern Arizona v. The State OF Ariz., 718 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …ortion-related activities. We will deal with the second of these arguments first. Other courts have looked upon the freeing-up theory with disfavor, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Minnesota v. Minnesota, 612 F. 2d 359, 361 (8th Cir.), aff’d mem., 448 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 3039, 65 L.Ed.2d 1131 (1980); Planned Parenthood Association—Chicago Area v. Kempiners, 568 F.Supp. 1490, 1495 (N.D.Ill.1983), and we hold that as a matter of law, the freeing-up theory cannot justify withdrawing all state funds from othe…
• Mid-America Reg'l Bargaining Ass'n v. Will Cnty. Carpenters Dist. Council, 675 F.2d 881 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …establishing a nonstatutory exemption from Sherman Act coverage for restraints acting primarily upon the labor market. See, eg, Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Association, 602 F. 2d 494, 513 (3d Cir. 1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 3040, 65 L.Ed.2d 1131 (1980); Leslie, Principles of Labor Antitrust, 66 Va.L.Rev. 1183,1196-97 (1980).24 [*891] This exemption was more explicitly developed by Justice White’s opinion in UMW v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Nat'l Expositions, Inc. v. Crowley Mar. Corp., 824 F.2d 131 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …tice and opportunity to respond before court may dismiss case sua sponte on the basis of the complaint), cert. denied sub nom. Preterm, Inc. v. King, 441 U.S. 952, 99 S.Ct. 2181, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979), app. dismissed sub nom. King v. Preterm, Inc., 448 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 3039, 65 L.Ed.2d 1131 (1980); Literature, Inc. v. Quinn, 482 F. 2d 372, 374 (1st Cir.1973) (same). And, National adds, it had no such notice here. The problem with National’s argument is that being “on notice” does not mean that it had t…