stating "courts have relied upon [Rule 503] as an accurate definition of the federal common law of attorney-client privilege" and affirming order quashing subpoena for taped statements made by client at direction of a lawyer
Summary of this case from In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces TecumNo. 86-675.
January 12, 1987.
C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 2d 1222.
stating "courts have relied upon [Rule 503] as an accurate definition of the federal common law of attorney-client privilege" and affirming order quashing subpoena for taped statements made by client at direction of a lawyer
Summary of this case from In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecumquestioning the specific intent requirement but holding that a judgment n.o.v. should have been granted in any event where there was no evidence that more than one of the alleged co-conspirators had some awareness that the underlying conduct was anticompetitive or monopolistic
Summary of this case from Re/Max International v. Realty One, Inc.explaining that abstention is the exception, and not the rule
Summary of this case from In re Carriage House Condominiums L.P.Full title:JASLOW DENTAL LABORATORY, INC., ET AL. v. WHELAN ASSOCIATES. INC
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 12, 1987
There is universal agreement that monopoly power is the power to exclude competition or control prices.…
Storer Cable Comms. v. Montgomery, Ala.Similarly, in Int'l Boxing Club of New York, Inc. v. United States, 358 U.S. 242, 249-252, 79 S.Ct. 245,…