Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litigation, In re
| Decision Date | 09 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-02781,WHEELING-PITTSBURGH,Nos. 91-1526,No. 84-02012,No. 587,No. 84-02010,No. 84-02134,91-1586-91-1595 and 91-1627-91-1634,No. 84-02079,No. 84-02135,No. 91-1633,No. 84-05562,No. 84-05760,No. 84-02138,587,84-02010,84-02012,84-02079,84-02134,84-02135,84-02138,84-02781,84-05562,84-05760,91-1633,s. 91-1526 |
| Parties | In re LOWER LAKE ERIE IRON ORE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL). (Nineteen Cases). WILLS TRUCKING, INC.; Consolidated Dock and Storage, Inc.; Toledo World Terminal, Inc. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.; Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad, Inc.; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Inc.; CSX Corporation; Consolidated Rail Corporation; Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Inc.; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company (D.C. Civil). Wills Trucking, Inc. and Toledo World Terminal, Inc., Appellants in 91-1526. Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Appellant in 91-1586. WILLS TRUCKING, INC.; Consolidated Dock and Storage, Inc.; Toledo World Terminal, Inc. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.; Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad, Inc.; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Inc.; CSX Corporation; Consolidated Rail Corporation; Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Inc.; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company (D.C. Civil). Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Appellant in 91-1587. C.D. AMBROSIA TRUCKING CO., INC. v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY; Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Inc.; CSX Corporation, Inc.; Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Inc.; Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Inc.; Consolidated Rail Corporation; the Penn Central Corporation, Inc. (D.C. Civil). Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Appellant in 91-1588. REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION v. The PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION; the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company; CSX Corporation; Consolidated Rail Corporation; Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Company; Norfolk & Western Railway Company; and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company (D.C. Civil). Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Appellant in 91-1589. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION; the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company; CSX Corporation; Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Company; Consolidated Rail Corporation (Civil). Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Co |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Paul F. Beery, Michael Spurlock (argued), Kitt C. Cooper (argued), Beery & Spurlock Co., L.P.A., Columbus, OH, for Wills Trucking Inc. and Toledo World Terminal, Inc.
James V. Dick, Timothy W. Bergin, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, DC, James M. Porter, Thomas S. Kilbane, Stacy D. Ballin, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, Howard J. Trienens (argued), G. Paul Moates, Carter G. Phillips, Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC, Thomas A. Masterson, Jr., William J. Taylor, Taylor & Taylor, Philadelphia, PA, for Bessemer & Lake Erie R. Co.
Kenneth P. Kolson, Ass'n of American Railroads, Washington, DC, for amicus Association of American Railroads.
Richard McMillan, Jr., Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC, for amicus CSX Trans. Inc.
Laurence Z. Shiekman, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, PA, for amicus Consolidated Rail Corp.
Bruce J. Ennis (argued), Carl S. Nadler, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, Lawrence R. Velvel, Michael L. Coyne, Windham, NH, for CD Ambrosia Trucking, Erie Western Pennsylvania Port Authority and Codan Corp.
Richard T. Colman (argued), Robert F. Ruyak, Robert L. Green, Jr., Jerrold J. Ganzfried, Basil C. Culyba, Marcia P. Kaplan, Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, for Republic Steel Corp., Jones & Laughlin Steel Inc. and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
William M. Wycoff (argued), Kevin C. Abbott, George P. Faines, Julie A. Maloney, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, PA, for National Steel Corp. and Sharon Steel Corp.
Jerry S. Cohen, Ann C. Yahner, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, DC, for Tauro Bros. Trucking Co.
Before: MANSMANN, SCIRICA and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
Industries involved in the transportation and manufacturing of iron ore are the adversaries The eventual trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The liability jury reached a verdict against Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company ("B & LE"), the sole remaining defendant, and in favor of all plaintiffs but one--David W. Reaney and Reaney Dock Co. The first jury was discharged and a new jury, empaneled for the damages phase, reached a verdict awarding all but one claim for damages. B & LE's motion for judgment n.o.v. was denied in most respects. Post-trial motions lodged by the Wills plaintiffs were likewise denied.
in this complex multi-district antitrust litigation. Five steel companies, three dock companies and three trucking companies filed civil actions in various federal district courts, alleging that the railroad companies serving the lower Lake Erie industrial region conspired in violation of federal and state antitrust laws to preclude potential competitors from entering the market of lake transport, dock handling, storage and land transport of iron ore. 1...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Title Insurance Antitrust Cases.
... ... 's new orders, the newly calculated compliant rate was lower than the non-compliant rate, the local exchange carriers ... litigation, “[a]sking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement ... by non-purchasing competitors) with In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d ... ...
-
A&H SPORTSWEAR CO. v. Victoria's Secret Stores
... ... the application in view of the pending litigation. Exhibit P-100B ... E ... All of A & H's MIRACLESUIT swimsuits have lower torso control; a few have cleavage enhancement in ... , 582, 34 L.Ed.2d 525 (1973); In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litigation, 998 F.2d ... ...
-
Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. Npr, Inc.
... ... This rate was lower than the rate charged by NPR in its filed tariffs ... to survive at this early stage of the litigation." Day, 917 F.Supp. at 75 (citing Gooley v ... context of a suit based on the federal antitrust laws. In Keogh v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 260 ... But see, In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litigation, 998 F.2d ... ...
- In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Nalaxone) Antitrust Litig.
-
Table of Cases
...110 Louisiana ex re/. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418 (Sth Cir. 2008}, 19 Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., J re, 998 F.2d 1144 (3d 1993), 127 M Mandeville Island Farms v. Am. Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 (1948), 59, 89, 246 M & M Med. Supplies & Serv. v. Pleasant Va......
-
The Keogh or 'Filed-Rate' Doctrine
...(D.C. Cir. 1995); Norwest Transp. v. Horn’s Poultry, Inc., 23 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1994); In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993); Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir. 1988); In re Wheat Rail Freight Rate Antitrust Litig......
-
Ohio. Practice Text
...Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 587, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5076 (E.D. Pa. 1989), with In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993) (affirming on basis of defendants’ failure to show prejudice). Another federal court reached the issue, but left it open. Se......
-
Table of Cases
...Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 493 So.2d 1149 (La. 1986), 176 In re Lower Lake Erie Iron One Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993), 395 M Mailand v. Burckle, 20 Cal. 3d 367 (Cal. 1978), 176 Mainstream Mktg. Servs. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), 43......