§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America et al v. US Airways Group Inc. et al

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS in Antitrust Case

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.

    552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983)   Cited 278 times
    Approving consent decree

  2. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.

    56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 152 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Microsoft, we said only that the district court should take into account the risk of unfairness to the opposing party, as well as the "customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings."

  3. United States v. BNS Inc.

    858 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that "the court may not engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public"

  4. United States v. SBC Communications, Inc.

    489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Finding largely identical provisions “adequate ... for the enforcement and modification of the final judgments.”

  5. United States v. Associated Milk Producers

    534 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1976)   Cited 48 times

    Nos. 75-1452 and 75-1473. Submitted November 11, 1975. Decided April 16, 1976. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing May 19, 1976. Melville C. Williams and Kael B. Kennedy, Chicago, Ill., and David R. Hardy and John C. Monica, Kansas City, Mo., on brief, for appellant. Thomas E. Kauper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert B. Nicholson, Laurence K. Gustafson, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Carl D. Lawson and Lee I. Weintraub, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief, for appellee, United States. Sidney Harris

  6. United States v. Bechtel Corp.

    648 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 37 times

    No. 79-4194. Argued and Submitted January 14, 1981. Decided June 18, 1981. Lee Loevinger, Washington, D.C., argued for defendants-appellants; Hogan Hartson, Washington, D.C., Janet F. Bentley, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. William D. Coston, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before SKOPIL and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge. Honorable William G. East,

  7. U.S. v. Western Elec. Co.

    993 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that a court "may reject an uncontested termination only if it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result"

  8. United States v. Stanley

    881 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    No. 11 Civ. 6875 (WHP). 2012-08-7 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY, Defendant. William H. Stallings (argued), Jade Alice Eaton, J. Richard Doidge, John W. Elias, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Jon Randall Roellke, Bingham McCutchen, LLP (DC), Washington, DC, for Defendant. WILLIAM H. PAULEY III William H. Stallings (argued), Jade Alice Eaton, J. Richard Doidge, John W. Elias, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington

  9. U.S. v. Enova Corp.

    107 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000)   Cited 7 times

    No. Civ.A. 98-583 June 30, 2000 Jade Alice Eaton, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S. Linda M. McMahon, Steven C. Sunshine, Sherman Sterling, Washington, DC, for Enova Corp. James Barr Moorhead, Steptoe Johnson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Southern California Edison Co. MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERTS, District Judge. This complaint was brought by the Justice Department to enjoin the merger of a California electrical utility and California's dominant natural gas transportation and storage

  10. U.S. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company

    272 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that “ district court must accord due respect to the government's prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case”

  11. Section 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another

    15 U.S.C. § 18   Cited 1,507 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Barring an acquisition "where in any line of commerce ... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition"

  12. Section 16 - Judgments

    15 U.S.C. § 16   Cited 711 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Tolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"

  13. Section 41714 - Availability of slots

    49 U.S.C. § 41714   Cited 4 times

    (a) MAKING SLOTS AVAILABLE FOR ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE.- (1) OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY.-If basic essential air service under subchapter II of this chapter is to be provided from an eligible point to a high density airport (other than Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport), the Secretary of Transportation shall ensure that the air carrier providing or selected to provide such service has sufficient operational authority at the high density airport to provide such service. The operational authority shall

  14. Section 41718 - Special rules for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

    49 U.S.C. § 41718   Cited 2 times
    Limiting number of "beyond-perimeter" exemptions to 12

  15. Section 93.121 - Applicability

    14 C.F.R. § 93.121   Cited 3 times

    This subpart designates high density traffic airports and prescribes air traffic rules for operating aircraft, other than helicopters, to or from those airports. 14 C.F.R. §93.121 Doc. No. 9974, 35 FR 16592, Oct. 24, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 93-27, 38 FR 29464, Oct. 25, 1973