STROUTH

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …n of the case to the jury. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Black Hills v. Hubbard, 203 F. 2d 859, 862 (8th Cir.1953) (quoted with approval in Dual Mfg. & Eng’g Inc. v. Burris Indus., 619 F. 2d 660, 663 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870, 101 S.Ct. 208, 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980)). Here, as in Trattles, any error regarding the jury instructions was not properly preserved for appellate review. Not only did the officers fail to properly object in the district court, they have not raised th…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Fishman v. Est. OF Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986)
  …the antitrust laws do protect, was not jeopardized. Brunswick and Riegel were not competing to acquire a natural monopoly— they were not competing at all. Cf. Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F. 2d 343 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870, 101 S.Ct. 208, 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980) (no antitrust violation because on the facts there was no competition to be affected). There would never have been competition between Brunswick or Riegel, with or without Riegel’s misconduct.16 In the present…
• Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp. v. United States, 745 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 1984)
  …art of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). . For a review of some of the pre-Varig cases, see Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F. 2d 948 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 870, 101 S.Ct. 208, 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980). See also Reynolds, “The Discretionary Function Exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act,” 57 GEO. 81, 82 (1968); Comment, "Scope of the Discretionary Function Exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act,” 67 GEO…