§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America v. SBC Communications Inc. et al

Memorandum in opposition to re Comptel's Motion for Leave to Intervene, or in the Alternative to Participate as Amicus Curiae

14 Cited authorities

  1. Diamond v. Charles

    476 U.S. 54 (1986)   Cited 1,142 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that assessment of attorney's fees against a party does not confer standing to pursue the action on appeal

  2. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Children's Center, Inc.

    146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times
    Holding that "third parties may be allowed to permissively intervene under Rule 24(b) for the limited purpose of seeking access to materials that have been shielded from public view either by seal or by a protective order"

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

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

  4. 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."

  5. Nuesse v. Camp

    385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967)   Cited 282 times
    Holding that Rule 24 was tailored for ordinary civil litigation, and that in atypical cases, intervention requires special consideration

  6. Massachusetts School of Law v. U.S.

    118 F.3d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting "the existence of district court discretion over the timeliness and adequacy of representation issues under Rule 24"

  7. U.S. v. 3D Systems Corporation

    Civil No: 1:01CV01237 (GK) (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2002)

    Civil No: 1:01CV01237 (GK) April 17, 2002 FINAL JUDGMENT GLADYDS KESSLER, United States District Judge WHEREAS, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 6, 2001, plaintiff and defendants, 3D Systems Corporation ("3D") and DTM Corporation ("DTM"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party

  8. United States v. Carrols Dev. Corp.

    454 F. Supp. 1215 (N.D.N.Y. 1978)   Cited 21 times

    No. 76-CV-170. July 7, 1978. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Division, New York City, for plaintiff; Bernard Wehrmann, Ralph Giordano, Erwin L. Atkins, New York City, of counsel. Farber Cohen, New York City, for defendants; Frank R. Cohen, New York City, of counsel. Kiley, Feldmann, Whalen Devine, Cazenovia, N.Y., for proposed intervenors, William D. Kiley, Cazenovia, N.Y., of counsel. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MUNSON, District Judge. In this civil antitrust action, a Proposed Consent Judgment has

  9. United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

    394 F. Supp. 29 (W.D. Mo. 1975)   Cited 14 times

    Civ. A. No. 74 CV 80-W 1. April 30, 1975. Rebecca J. Schneiderman, John C. Danielson, Antitrust Div., Dept. of Justice, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Sidney Harris, Washington, D.C., for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge. I. This antitrust case was initially filed on February 1, 1972 in the Western District of Texas as a civil action under circumstances stated in the affidavit filed January 3, 1974 by the Honorable Richard W. McLaren, presently a United States District

  10. Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Allendale Co.

    226 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1955)   Cited 32 times
    In Textile Workers Union of America v. Allendale Co. (226 F.2d 765, 769), the court, after considering the right to absolute intervention under subdivision (a) of rule 24, concluded: "Even if 24 (a) were inapplicable here, we are convinced that appellants would be entitled to intervene under the terms of 24 (b). Appellees concede that appellants may have a `general interest' in the subject of the suit, but they assert that this interest does not constitute a `claim or defense' as required by the rule.

  11. Rule 24 - Intervention

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 24   Cited 9,164 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

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

    15 U.S.C. § 18   Cited 1,506 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Barring an acquisition "where in any line of commerce ... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition"

  13. 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"