§Why CasetextPricing

State of Colorado et al v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd. et al

Memorandum in opposition to re Joint MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and the Production of Documents

13 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

    457 U.S. 332 (1982)   Cited 471 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that price fixing between medical organizations is per se unreasonable

  2. Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc.

    498 U.S. 46 (1990)   Cited 229 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding an agreement between bar review course providers dividing market territories for the purpose of raising prices was per se illegal

  3. Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

    324 U.S. 439 (1945)   Cited 376 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Georgia had an interest apart from that of its citizens where numerous railroads had conspired to fix freight rates in a manner that discriminated against Georgia shippers in violation of federal antitrust laws

  4. Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach

    166 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 221 times
    Holding that women are a protected class under § 1985

  5. People ex Rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court

    122 Cal.App.4th 1060 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that in action brought by the People, defendants could not compel Attorney General to produce documents in possession of nonparty state agencies, because "[e]ach agency or department of the state is established as a separate entity"

  6. New York ex rel. Boardman v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.

    233 F.R.D. 259 (N.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 40 times
    Denying motion to compel production of documents from one state agency, the Office of State Comptroller, that was not a party to action against a separate state agency, Department of Transportation, finding sued state agency and non-party state agency were not "interrelated" where agencies did not share similar mission or goals, were situated at different spectrums of state governance as established by New York's constitution, and did not share or control each other's agenda, documents, or personnel

  7. United States v. American Telephone Telegraph

    461 F. Supp. 1314 (D.D.C. 1978)   Cited 63 times
    In United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 461 F.Supp. 1314 (D.D.C.1978), the court held that because the decision to commence the action against the defendant obviously was based on extensive consultation with a number of executive agencies, the defendant had a right to serve interrogatories on any executive agency involved.

  8. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,528 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

  9. Section 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs

    15 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 1,450 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"

  10. Section 6-4-111 - Civil discovery request - rules

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-111   Cited 12 times
    Authorizing the state attorney general to bring suit for indirect injury to any government or public entity

  11. Section 1-301.111 - Duties of the Corporation Counsel. [Repealed]

    D.C. Code § 1-301.111   Cited 2 times

    D.C. Code § 1-301.111 Leg. Assem., Aug. 23, 1871, ch. 108, § 18; June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 116, ch. 337, § 2; Mar. 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1340, ch. 854, § 932; June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 537, ch. 1329; Mar. 4, 1923, 42 Stat. 1488, ch. 265; 1967 Reorg. Plan No. 3, § 401, 81 Stat. 951; May 27, 2010, D.C. Law 18-160, § 141(a), 57 DCR 3012. Office of Corporation Counsel abolished: The Office of the Corporation Counsel was abolished and the functions thereof transferred to the Board of Commissioners of the District

  12. Section 6-4-112 - Enforcement by the attorney general

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-112   Cited 1 times

    (1) The attorney general may institute actions or proceedings to prevent or restrain violations of this article 4, including actions to prevent or restrain unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce. (2) The attorney general may bring a civil action on behalf of the state or any governmental or public entity injured, either directly or indirectly, in its business or property by reason of any violation of this article 4 and, if successful, shall recover any actual damages sustained by

  13. Section 6-4-117 - Computation of damages

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-117

    In any action brought pursuant to section 6-4-112 or 6-4-115, the amount of damages may be calculated and assessed in the aggregate by statistical or sampling methods, by the computation of illegal overcharges, or by such other reasonable system of estimating aggregate damages as the court in its discretion may permit without requiring separate proof of any individual claim of, or amount of damages to, each person on whose behalf the action was brought. C.R.S. § 6-4-117 Amended by 2023 Ch. 427,§