Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, In re
| Decision Date | 16 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2346,No. 81-2343,No. 81-2349,No. 81-2344,No. 81-2348,No. 81-2347,No. 81-2345,No. 81-2342,No. 81-2350,Nos. 81-2341,No. 81-2341,81-2341,81-2342,81-2343,81-2344,81-2345,81-2346,81-2347,81-2348,81-2349,81-2350,s. 81-2341 |
| Citation | 685 F.2d 810 |
| Parties | 1982-2 Trade Cases 64,843, 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1621 In re FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION. (Ten cases) The STATE OF ALASKA, on its own behalf and on behalf of its cities, boroughs, and other political subdivisions v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; Champion International Corporation, A New York Corporation; Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation; Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, A Maine Corporation; Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation; International Paper Company, a New York Corporation; Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; The Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation; Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation; St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation; Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation; Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation; Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation; Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation; Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of STATE OF ALASKA, inSTATE OF COLORADO v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, d/b/a Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, The Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of STATE OF COLORADO, inSTATE OF WASHINGTON, on behalf of itself and its public entities v. BOISE CASCADE CORP., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatc |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Louise E. Ma, Mark E. Ashburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellant State of Alaska in No. 81-2341.
Thomas P. McMahon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Antitrust Unit, Enforcement Section, Dept. of Law, Denver, Colo., for appellant State of Colo. in No. 81-2342.
John R. Ellis, James Kirkham Johns (Argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, Wash., for appellant State of Wash. in Nos. 81-2342 and 81-2343.
William Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellant State of Mo. in No. 81-2344.
Richard L. Caswell, Antitrust Div., Dept. of Justice, Salem, Or., for appellant State of Or. in No. 81-2345.
Patricia A. Cutler, Charles M. Kagay, Dept. of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant State of Cal. in No. 81-2346.
Dale A. Comer, Dept. of Justice, Lincoln, Neb., for appellant State of Neb. in No. 81-2347.
John R. Perkins, Antitrust Div., Dept. of Justice, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant State of Iowa in No. 81-2348.
Jerome J. Cate, Asst. Atty. Gen., Antitrust Enforcement Bureau, Helena, Mont., for appellant State of Mont. in No. 81-2349.
Callis L. Childs, Antitrust Div., Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellant State of Ark. in No. 81-2350.
Patrick W. Kittredge, Kittredge, Kaufman & Donley, Philadelphia, Pa., Liaison Counsel for all appellees and for The Mead Corp.
Reed E. Hundt, James R. Asperger, Latham, Watkins & Hills, Washington, D. C., John P. Borgwardt, Boise Cascade Corp., Portland, Or., for appellee Boise Cascade Corp.
Gordon B. Spivack, Norman H. Seidler, Stephen Hogan, James R. Eiszner, Jr., Lord, Day & Lord, New York City, for appellee Champion Intern. Corp.
William R. Norfolk, Bruce E. Clark, William H. Knull, III, Martin J. Conlon, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for appellee Crown Zellerbach Corp.
Richard K. Decker, Michael P. Comiskey, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. and Butler Paper Co.
Howard Adler, Jr., Marc S. Palay, Gregory J. Vogt, Bergson, Borkland, Margolis & Adler, Washington, D. C., for appellee Hammermill Paper Co.
Erwin C. Heininger, Ned Robertson, John T. Hundley, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Intern. Paper Co.
H. Blair White (Argued), Nathan P. Eimer, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Harold F. Baker, Alan Wiseman, Robert M. Bruskin, Scott E. Flick, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D. C., for appellee The Mead Corp.
Robert B. Owen, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., Norman M. Heisman, James A. Corrodi, Scott Paper Co., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Scott Paper Co.
Stephen C. Neal, Joel G. Chefitz, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Weyerhaeuser Co.
Before ALDISERT, GIBBONS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated appeals present several procedural issues arising from a complex antitrust proceeding. Ten states, plaintiffs below, appeal from judgments entered on a jury verdict in their actions for treble damages alleging a nationwide price-fixing conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The defendants did not offer any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sodexomagic, LLC v. Drexel Univ. Sodexomagic, LLC
...premised on false billing – the submission of invoices for which there was no obligation to pay.18 See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) ("We will not interfere with a trial court's control of its docket except upon the clearest showing that the procedures......
-
American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Sav. & Loan Securities Litigation, In re
...Pub. Util. Group, 843 F.2d at 326; In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d at 1178 n. 7; In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d at 820 n. 7; Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972), 549 F.2d at 1009 n. 4; In re Ai......
-
Geraghty v. U.S. Parole Com'n
...in its class action determinations. We must uphold those determinations absent proof of abuse of discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 822 (3d Cir.1982). We find no abuse of discretion First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify a......
-
Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n
...obtain crucial evidence, and implicit in such a showing is proof that more diligent discovery was impossible." In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 818 (3d Cir.1982) (citation omitted). We review the district court's denial of the motion for recusal for abuse of discretion. Blan......
-
Legal enforcement and limitations
...of allegedly price-fixed gasoline). 5 . See, e.g. , In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 156 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff’d , 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982); see also Alaska v. Chevron Chem. Co., 669 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that Alaska law authorizes attorney general to su......
-
Civil Government Enforcement
...price-fixed gasoline). 808. See, e.g., In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff ’d on other grounds , 685 F.2d 810, 824 (3d Cir. 1982) (finding that, in an action where plaintiff states sought to recover on behalf of agencies, the district court did not abuse it......
-
Chapter VII. Class Action Assertion of Indirect Purchaser Claims
...1994 WL 663590, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 1994) (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 150 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff’d , 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982)); Transam. Ref. Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 130 F.R.D. 70, 73 (S.D. Tex. 1990). 551. Coordination Proceedings, Microsoft I-V Cases, No......
-
Class Action Assertion of Indirect Purchaser Claims
...Litig., 1994 WL 663590, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 150 (E.D. Pa. 1979), aff’d , 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982)); Transamerican Ref. Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 130 F.R.D. 70, 73 (S.D. Tex. 1990). 102 . In re Sugar Indus. Antitrust Litig., 1976 WL......