20 Cited authorities

Maryland v. United States
460 U.S. 1001 (1983) Cited 213 times
Approving consent decree that set in train lengthy judicial oversight of divestiture of telephone monopoly
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983) Cited 278 times
Approving consent decree
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.
56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 153 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."
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"
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.”
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,
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
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”
United States v. Gillette Co.
406 F. Supp. 713 (D. Mass. 1975) Cited 25 times
Civ. A. No. 68-141. December 30, 1975. Julie Murray, David Goldsweig, Antitrust Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. G. Marshall Moriarty, Edward Hanify, Ropes Gray, Boston, Mass., for Gillette Co. Peter B. Ellis, Foley, Hoag Eliot, Boston, Mass., for Sperry Rand Co. Alexander W. Sierck of Sierck, Wald, Harkrader Ross, Washington, D.C., for Ronson Co. OPINION ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. The matter of a proposed consent decree in this government-initiated civil antitrust
U.S. v. Alcoa, Inc.
152 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2001)
Civil Action No. 2000-954(RMU). July 10, 2001. Mark S. Hegedus, Andrew K. Rosa, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Mark Leddy, David Irving Gelfand, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, Washington, DC, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION URBINA, District Judge, Accepting the Consent Decree and Entering Final Judgment I. Introduction This antitrust case comes before the court on a motion by the United States for entry of final judgment with respect to a proposed consent decree
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 98,004 times 136 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,050 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 15 - Suits by persons injured
15 U.S.C. § 15 Cited 5,689 times 35 Legal Analyses
Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
Section 901 - Short title
33 U.S.C. § 901 Cited 4,127 times 20 Legal Analyses
This chapter may be cited as "Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act." 33 U.S.C. § 901 Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, §1, 44 Stat. 1424; Pub. L. 98-426, §27(d)(1), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1654. EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS1984- Pub. L. 98-426 substituted "Longshore" for "Longshoremen's". STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 98-426, §28(a)-(g), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1655, provided that:"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments
Section 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another
15 U.S.C. § 18 Cited 1,509 times 51 Legal Analyses
Barring an acquisition "where in any line of commerce ... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition"
Section 22 - District in which to sue corporation
15 U.S.C. § 22 Cited 727 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing for venue where the defendant is "an inhabitant," "may be found," or "transacts business"
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"
Section 25 - Restraining violations; procedure
15 U.S.C. § 25 Cited 197 times 4 Legal Analyses
Conferring jurisdiction on federal courts to "prevent and restrain violations" of antitrust law
Section 5 - Bringing in additional parties
15 U.S.C. § 5 Cited 99 times 3 Legal Analyses
Allowing nationwide service only if the court finds “that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court”

United States of America v. Pearson plc et al

20 Cited authorities

Approving consent decree that set in train lengthy judicial oversight of divestiture of telephone monopoly

Approving consent decree

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."

Holding that "the court may not engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public"

Finding largely identical provisions “adequate ... for the enforcement and modification of the final judgments.”

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”

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."

Barring an acquisition "where in any line of commerce ... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition"

Providing for venue where the defendant is "an inhabitant," "may be found," or "transacts business"

Tolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"

Conferring jurisdiction on federal courts to "prevent and restrain violations" of antitrust law

Allowing nationwide service only if the court finds “that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court”