Antitrust Damage Allocation: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, First and Second Sessions, on Antitrust Damage Allocation, October 21, 1981; March 3, 18, June 9, and September 9, 1982
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983 - 628 páginas
Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario
No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
action actual additional agree agreement amount antitrust laws antitrust litigation apply Attorney believe bill caused Chairman claim reduction class action Committee companies complex concern conduct Congress consider conspiracy contribution and claim Corporation costs counsel court create criminal deal defendant's defendants determined deterrence Discussion Draft effect enforcement example existing fact fair Federal filed fixing give going horizontal increase industry intentional interest involved issue joint Judge judgment judicial jury Justice kind lawyers legislation less liability limited litigation market share matter means ment million parties pending percent permit person plaintiff possible potential practical present price-fixing problem proposal question reason relative remaining remedy respect responsibility result risk RODINO rule Senate settle settlement settling defendant statement statute suggest talking Thank tion tort treble damages trial unfair United violation
Página 582 - That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Página 628 - But even if this argument were more persuasive than it is, it could hardly be accepted. For, at bottom, it asks us to continue the operation of an archaic rule because its facile application out of court yields quick, though inequitable, settlements, and relieves the courts of some litigation. Congestion in the courts cannot justify a legal rule that produces unjust results in litigation simply to encourage speedy out-of-court accommodations. Finally, the respondent suggests that the creation of...
Página 206 - The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade. It rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing...
Página 511 - Wherever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is familiar to the criminal law to make him take the risk.
Página 511 - But apart from the common law as to restraint of trade thus taken up by the statute the law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury subsequently estimates it, some matter of degree. If his judgment is wrong, not only may he incur a fine or a short imprisonment, as here; he may incur the penalty of death.
Página 606 - ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.
Página 617 - Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 342 US 282, 72 S.Ct. 277, 96 L.Ed. 318...
Página 325 - Upon principle, every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must be deemed retrospective.
Página 579 - The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 US 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KELLY, CONNECTICUT CHIEF STATE'S ATTORNEY, ET AL.