Maryland v. United States
460 U.S. 1001 (1983) Cited 213 timesApproving consent decree that set in train lengthy judicial oversight of divestiture of telephone monopoly
United States v. Marine Bancorporation
418 U.S. 602 (1974) Cited 209 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the relevant geographic market or appropriate section of the country is the area in which the acquired firm is an actual competitor."
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983) Cited 278 timesApproving consent decree
United States v. Continental Can Co.
378 U.S. 441 (1964) Cited 153 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that metal and glass containers were in the same relevant market based on the facts, which demonstrated a "general confrontation between metal and glass containers and competition between them for the same end uses which [was] insistent, continuous, effective, and quantitywise, very substantial. . . ." lasting "over the long run"
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.
56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 153 times 4 Legal AnalysesIn 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 timesHolding that "the court may not engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public"
United States v. Bechtel Corp.
648 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 37 timesNo. 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,
Fruehauf Corp. v. F.T.C.
603 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1979) Cited 34 timesIn Fruehauf, the Second Circuit listed several factual considerations relevant to predicting the probable effects of a merger, including, inter alia, the nature and economic purpose of the arrangement, the likelihood and size of any market foreclosure, the extent of concentration of sellers and buyers in the industry, the capital cost required to enter the market, the degree of market power possessed by the merged enterprise, the number and strength of competing suppliers and purchasers, and the existence of a trend toward vertical concentration or oligopoly in the industry.
State v. Kraft General Foods, Inc.
926 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) Cited 12 timesRelying on the Merger Guidelines to determine the relevant product market
U.S. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
272 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) Cited 2 timesNoting 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”
Section 16 - Judgments
15 U.S.C. § 16 Cited 711 times 11 Legal AnalysesTolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"
Section 343 - Investigation by the attorney general
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 343 Cited 36 times 1 Legal AnalysesWhenever it shall appear to the attorney general, either upon complaint or otherwise, that any person or persons, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association shall have engaged in or engages in or is about to engage in any act or practice by this article prohibited or declared to be illegal, or that any person, persons, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association has assisted or participated in any plan, scheme, agreement or combination of the nature described herein, or whenever