EUSTER ET AL.

v.

PENNSYLVANIA HORSE RACING COMMISSION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Hancock Indus. & Ace Serv. Corp. & E. Waste Removal & Charles Crumbley, Inc. v. Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1987)
  …stantive ground. Because the haulers’ antitrust claim was properly resolved as a matter of law on the basis of stipulated facts, factual discovery was unnecessary. Euster v. Eagle Downs Racing Association, 677 F. 2d 992, 997 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1022, 103 S.Ct. 388, 74 L.Ed.2d 519 (1982). Indeed, the haulers arguably conceded this point when they told the district court at the July 5 hearing only that additional discovery was needed on defendants’ rational basis in closing the landfills. The ha…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 922 F.2d 1122 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …rsuant to 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(b) (West Supp.1990). We have written that “the state action exemption cases clearly indicate that this issue involves a question of law.... ” Euster v. Eagle Downs Racing Ass’n, 677 F. 2d 992, 997 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1022, 103 S.Ct. 388, 74 L.Ed.2d 519 (1982); see also New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTC, 908 F. 2d 1064, 1072 (1st Cir.1990) (“How these facts meld into the state action concept — the issue now before us — is a legal issue which the courts have p…