CALIFORNIA

v.

PATRICK STEVEN W.

Citator

Cited By (44 total)

• MCI Commc'ns Corp. & MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …d the unsavory flavor of the monopoly broth, you would not just audit the chef’s books of account; you would also take a look at his recipe. City of Mishawaka v. American Electric Power Company, Inc., 616 F. 2d 976, 986 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096, 101 S.Ct. 892, 66 L.Ed.2d 824 (1981). 1. The History and Goals of the Sherman Act The majority’s insistence that an arguably predatory pattern of behavior is of no concern to the antitrust laws where prices exceed incremental costs rests first on…

  ← 1 / 5 →
• Spray-Rite Serv. Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 684 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1982)
  …part of an illegal horizontal scheme to allocate markets and, thus, were per se illegal. The jury was so instructed, and we affirmed. Accord, Mishawaka, Indiana v. American Electric Power Co., Inc., 616 F. 2d 976, 986 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096, 101 S.Ct. 892, 66 L.Ed.2d 824 reh. denied, 450 U.S. 960, 101 S.Ct. 1421, 67 L.Ed.2d 385 (1981). In this case, the court instructed the jury that Monsanto’s otherwise lawful compensation programs and shipping policies were per se unlawful if underta…
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co., 660 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1981)
  …onale behind Rule 52(a) — the factfinder’s opportuni [*263] ty to determine the credibility of witnesses — is not implicated.8 In the recent ease of City of Mishawaka v. American Electric Power Co., 616 F. 2d 976, 979 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096, 101 S.Ct. 892, 66 L.Ed.2d 824 (1981), this court acknowledged that “a broader rule” might be appropriate in a “paper case,” but noted that even though “evidentiary documentation [was] voluminous, we see no need in these circumstances to go behind t…

  ← 1 / 2 →