KONDRAT

v.

MARTINET

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• Int'l Union OF Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union NO. 20, AFL-CIO v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …burden is met, however, the opponent must counter with specific factual allegations revealing a genuine dispute of fact in order to preclude summary disposition. See Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp., 693 F. 2d 870, 883 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1085, 103 S.Ct. 1777, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983). Nowhere in the Proposed Pre-Trial Order, in appellants’ brief below, or in the course of oral argument, did appellants seek to introduce extrinsic evidence6 or [*1406] raise the issue of ambiguity addressed t…
• United States v. Miller, 771 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …lative of the Sherman Act, it must be the result of an illegal agreement. See also Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp., 693 F. 2d 870, 885 (9th Cir.1982) (evidence of meetings is not sufficient to prove a conspiracy, absent an agreement), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1085, 103 S.Ct. 1777, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983). By instructing the jury that there could be no Sherman Act violation absent an illegal agreement, the trial court properly encompassed the distinction between price-fixing and exchanging price information in i…
• Tafford E. Oltz v. ST. Peter's Cmty. Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …e action); Zoslaw v. M.C.A. Distributing Corp., 693 F. 2d 870, 884 (9th Cir.1982) (plaintiff must demonstrate that the parallel acts were against each conspirator’s self-interest and, thus, not based on a good faith business judgment), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1085, 103 S.Ct. 1777, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983); Kruezer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 735 F. 2d 1479, 1487 (D.C.Cir.1984) (plaintiff must show the acts by defendant were against its own independent economic interests and show a motivation for defen…