FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

v.

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSN.

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• Stephen C.S. HU v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …this section is far broader than the common law doctrine. It is more of a revision of the doctrine than a codification of the doctrine. See also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 252, 102 S.Ct. 252, 265, 70 L.Ed.2d 419, 434 (1981), reh. denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1296, 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982). This is because a court, in determining the propriety of a venue change, can also consider the convenience of the witnesses and interests of justice, which are factors not contingent upon the plaintiff’s choic…
• Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1983)
  …1978). See Pennzoil Co. v. FERC, 645 F. 2d, at 379. The Kansas Supreme Court relied on its prior decision in Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 229 Kan. 631, 629 P. 2d 190, clarified, 230 Kan. 166, 630 P. 2d 1129 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 928 (1982), which interpreted the effect of § 105 on a similar contract provision. In that decision, it read § 105 to set the lawful ceiling at the lower price provided by the contract. In light of our discussion above, we view this reading of the feder…
• Litton Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …on that these practices amounted to no more than de minimis injury under Berkey Photo Inc., 603 F. 2d at 288-89; see also Federal Prescription Service Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 663 F. 2d 253, 268-71 (D.C.Cir. [*816] 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1293, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982). We disagree. AT & T’s seriatim attacks upon the jury’s findings invite us to approach Litton’s proof as if this case involved “completely separate and unrelated lawsuits ... tightly compartmentalizing the vari…