holding that indirect purchasers could not sue under Oregon antitrust law where parties treated state and federal antitrust claims as one and the same for purposes of standing analysis
Summary of this case from Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PLCNo. 99-642.
January 10, 2000.
C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 185 F. 3d 957.
holding that indirect purchasers could not sue under Oregon antitrust law where parties treated state and federal antitrust claims as one and the same for purposes of standing analysis
Summary of this case from Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PLCfinding injury too remote for recovery, possibility of duplicative recovery, and complex apportionment of damages warranted dismissal
Summary of this case from Republic of Panama v. the Am. Tobacco Co.concluding that Texas choice of law clause in employment agreement did not encompass tort claims for personal injury arising out of employment
Summary of this case from Eckard Global Energy v. Bakken Assumptions I, L.L.C.noting that under New Jersey law, "city employees cannot be found liable for tortious interference with a co-employee's contractual advantage" and "while the corporate entity may be the technical party to the employment contract, the corporation can act only through its agents and employees."
Summary of this case from McCarthy v. Szostkiewiczappending and adopting the BAP decision
Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Elite of L.A., Inc. (In re Hamilton)Full title:OREGON LABORERS-EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND et al. v. PHILIP MORRIS…
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 10, 2000
Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz.…
U.S. v. YieldingOn the other hand, if it is determined that Yielding personally owns all or part of the proceeds, the record…