FORRO PRECISION, INC.

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Fagan, 821 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1987)
  …types of conduct, no matter how morally reprehensible, are not prohibited by the statute”); United States v. Wesley, 748 F. 2d 962, 964 (5th Cir.1984) ("§ 1512 ... focuses solely on the protection of witnesses ... from intimidation”), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1130, 105 S.Ct. 2664, 86 L.Ed.2d 281 (1985). Likewise, section 875(b) apparently would not reach simple bribery. See United States v. Blount, 229 F. 2d 669, 671 (2d Cir.1956). . Woolsey’s guilt as a principal (which is a necessary predicate to Fagan’s…
• United States v. Bordallo, 857 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …37; see also United States v. Risken, 788 F. 2d 1361, 1368-69 (8th Cir.) (citing King with approval), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923, 107 S.Ct. 329, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986). But cf. United States v. Wesley, 748 F. 2d 962, 964 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1130, 105 S.Ct. 2664, 86 L.Ed.2d 281 (1985) (holding that “urging and advising” witness to testify falsely violates section 1512 without indicating whether there was intimidation or misleading conduct). We find that Bordallo’s conviction is supported by…
• Barry v. Blue Cross OF California, 805 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …far below what we would require for a monopoly. See Forro Precision, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 673 F. 2d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.1982) (a thirty-five percent market share did not permit an inference of monopoly power), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1130, 105 S.Ct. 2664, 86 L.Ed.2d 280 (1985). Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of monopolization. V Because the two doctors have not produced sufficient evidence of horizontal conspiracy, because the vertical agreements between B…