RUSSO

v.

MITCHELL ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Hoyt, 879 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …ited States v. Brandon, 633 F. 2d 773, 778 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Shapiro, 669 F. 2d 593, 598 (9th Cir.1982); and United States v. Rhodes, 713 F. 2d 463, 467 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 535, 78 L.Ed.2d 715 (1983) and 465 U.S. 1038, 104 S.Ct. 1314, 79 L.Ed.2d 711 (1984). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). United States v. Diggs, 649 F. 2d…
• United States v. Amel F. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1986)
  …l income by violating the federal narcotics laws. United States v. Becton, 751 F. 2d 250, 254 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 3480, 87 L.Ed.2d 615 (1985); United States v. Samuelson, 697 F. 2d 255 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1038, 104 S.Ct. 1314, 79 L.Ed.2d 711 (1984). Showing that Lueth derived substantial unreported income from his drug trafficking is the exact purpose for which the evidence complained of was admitted. McMahon does not contend, nor do we doubt, that the CC…
• Fishman v. Est. OF Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986)
  …lear that the market is a natural monopoly, a court should allow the use of pricing that would otherwise be condemned as “predatory”). See also, e.g., Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F. 2d 534, 542-46 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1038, 104 S.Ct. 1315, 79 L.Ed.2d 712 (1984) (a monopolist need not make essential technology available to a would-be competitor and need not articulate a good reason for withholding the technology). There is, of course, another possibility: that a marke…