Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re
Citation | 723 F.2d 238 |
Decision Date | 05 December 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 189,Nos. 81-2331,No. 74-2451,No. 74-3247,189,74-2451,74-3247,s. 81-2331 |
Parties | , 1983-2 Trade Cases 65,757, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 401 In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation ("MELCO"), Appellant. to 81-2333. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Edwin P. Rome (argued), Morris L. Weisberg, William H. Roberts, Arnold I. Kalman, Kathleen Herzog Larkin, Norman E. Greenspan, Margaret B. Dardess, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants, Zenith Radio Corp. and Nat. Union Elec. Corp.; Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Zenith Radio Corp., Glenview, Ill., of counsel.
Asa D. Sokolow (argued), Renee J. Roberts, Brian G. Lustbader, Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen, Joshua F. Greenberg, Randolph S. Sherman, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, Franklin Poul, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Sony Corp. and Sony Corp. of America.
Louis A. Lehr, Jr. (argued), Stanley M. Lipnick, John L. Ropiequet, Carol R. Kanter, Arnstein, Gluck & Lehr, Chicago, Ill., Harry A. Short, Jr., Liebert, Short, Fitzpatrick & Lavin, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Philip M. Knox, Jr., Charles A. Tausche, Ann M. Coons, Law Dept., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Thomas P. Coffey (argued), E. Houston Harsha, Karl F. Nygren, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, Motorola, Inc.; Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Henry T. Reath (argued), Terry R. Broderick, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., Hoken S. Seki, Seki, Jarvis & Lynch, Chicago, Ill., John T. Dolan, Arnold B. Calmann, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell, Newark, N.J., for appellee, Mitsubishi Elec. Corp.
Charles F. Schirmeister (argued), Charles Z. Krueger, Reid & Priest, New York City, Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Mitsubishi Corp. and Mitsubishi Intern. Corp.
Donald J. Zoeller (argued), Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander, New York City, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., Liaison Counsel for appellees and for Toshiba defendants.
Whitman & Ransom, New York City, Hunt, Kerr, Bloom, Hitchner, O'Brien & Conrad, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo appellees.
Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, Philadelphia, Pa., for Motorola appellee.
Wender, Murase & White, New York City, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for the Sharp appellees.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Ira M. Millstein (argued), A. Paul Victor, Joel B. Harris (argued), Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for Matsushita appellees.
William H. Barrett, Carl W. Schwarz, Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz, Washington, D.C., for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha and Hitachi Sales Corp. of America.
H. William Tanaka, Lawrence R. Walders and B. Jenkins Middleton, Tanaka, Walders & Ritger, Washington, D.C., for Hitachi, Ltd., et al.
sitting by designation.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, GIBBONS and MESKILL *, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs, National Union Electric Corporation (NUE) and Zenith Radio Corporation (Zenith), appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in favor of all twenty-four defendants on their respective complaints. The NUE complaint, filed in the District of New Jersey in December 1970, as amended, names as defendants seven Japanese television manufacturers, eight of their subsidiaries, and one Japanese trading company and its United States subsidiary. The Zenith complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in September 1974, names as defendants all of those named...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hallums v. US, No. 98-CM-1354.
...or conscious fabrication.") (quoting United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 785 (7th Cir.1979)); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 303 (3d Cir.1983) (exception for present sense impression founded on notion that contemporaneity of observation and impression protect......
-
Salt Pond Associates v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG.
...be drawn in favor of the responding party, then the moving party cannot obtain summary judgment. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3rd Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 IV. DISCUSSION Before proceeding w......
-
Pfizer Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.
...may be drawn in favor of the responding party, then the moving party cannot obtain summary judgment. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3d Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 II. DISCUSSION A. PFIZER'S STAN......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...defense. On summary judgment, the movant's affidavits must establish a prima facie defense of laches. See In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antit. Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3d Cir.1983). C. Scope of Length of delay and other matters of historical circumstance are questions of fact. In the event ......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...does not have an absolute right to have evidence displayed in its entirety in open court. In re Supreme Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238 (3rd Cir. 1983). So long as the spirit of the rules is observed, a court is not restricted in how it applies rules on admissibility of evidenc......
-
Price discrimination and related conduct
...1986). Furthermore, both sales must occur within the United States and its territories. See In re Japanese Elecs. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 317 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. , Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). 80. See, e.g. , ......
-
Pretrial preparation
...field.” FRE 703; Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 1984); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238, 276-78 (3rd Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom , Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574 (1986). The expert m......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...call” that the jury could make unassisted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and relying upon In re Japanese Products 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), noted that there is no requirement that expert testimony be beyond the jury’s sphere of knowledge. Even when jurors are well equipp......
-
29 C.F.R. 18 app to Subpart B of Part 18 Reporter's Notes
...with respect to questions of admissibility generally, section 18.104(a), see In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1983) ("The scope of review of the trial court's trustworthiness determination depends on the basis for the ruling. When the tr......
-
29 C.F.R. 18 app to Subpart B of Part 18 Reporter's Notes
...with respect to questions of admissibility generally, section 18.104(a), see In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1983) ("The scope of review of the trial court's trustworthiness determination depends on the basis for the ruling. When the tr......
-
29C.F.R. 18 app to Subpart B of Part 18 Reporter's Notes
...with respect to questions of admissibility generally, section 18.104(a), see In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1983) ("The scope of review of the trial court's trustworthiness determination depends on the basis for the ruling. When the tr......