21 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,080 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.
504 U.S. 451 (1992) Cited 2,287 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product
Fuentes v. Perskie
32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 3,761 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff can challenge a legitimate reason for an employment action by showing, inter alia, that the employer treated other, similarly situated persons not of her protected class more favorably
Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko
540 U.S. 398 (2004) Cited 506 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 513 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief
United States v. Griffith
334 U.S. 100 (1948) Cited 405 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding invalid concerted action by a number of movie distribution companies
Krechman v. Cnty. of Riverside
723 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 155 times
Holding that " district court can grant a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law only if there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue."
Image Tech. Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak
125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 215 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a litigant's summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for JMOL at the close of the evidence
U.S. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc.
399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 150 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a market share between 75 percent and 80 percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power"
City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel
365 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 132 times
Holding that "the jury could have reasonably inferred" that defendant was guilty of common law misappropriation because it used plaintiff's "confidential bidding strategies" which plaintiff "invested substantial time and skill" in developing
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,597 times 62 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 4,380 times 30 Legal Analyses
In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

21 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

Holding that a plaintiff can challenge a legitimate reason for an employment action by showing, inter alia, that the employer treated other, similarly situated persons not of her protected class more favorably

Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief

Holding invalid concerted action by a number of movie distribution companies

Holding that " district court can grant a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law only if there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue."

Holding that a litigant's summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for JMOL at the close of the evidence

Holding that a market share between 75 percent and 80 percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power"

Holding that "the jury could have reasonably inferred" that defendant was guilty of common law misappropriation because it used plaintiff's "confidential bidding strategies" which plaintiff "invested substantial time and skill" in developing

Allowing "renewed motion"

In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.