green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1983 ·
…monopolization cases involving ... regulated industries are special in nature and require close scrutiny.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
(2×)
monopolization cases involving ... regulated industries are special in nature and require close scrutiny.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Louisiana v. Oderra Benitez Holmes
State v McIntyre, 381 So. 2d 408, 410 ( La. 1980), cert, denied, 449 U. S. 871 , 101 S. Ct. 209 , 66 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Garner
See, State v. McIntyre 381 So.2d 408 (La.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871 , 101 S.Ct. 209 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6409, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,547, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,799 Sara Townsend Sabow Thomas F. Sabow Vera Sabow David N. Sabow Dierdre Sabow John David Sabow v. United States
See generally Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) ("Decision making as to investigation and enforcement, particularly when there are different types of enforcement action available, are discretionary judgments." (quoting Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980))); Hobdy v. United States, 762 F.Supp. 1459, 1461 (D.Kan.1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 20 (10th Cir.1992) ("[T]he decision how to investigate, who to investigate, and how to …
discussed
Cited "see"
Sabow v. United States
See generally Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986) (“Decision making as to investigation and enforcement, particularly when there are different types of enforcement action available, are discretionary judgments.” (quoting Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980))); Hobdy v. United States, 762 F.Supp. 1459, 1461 (D.Kan.1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 20 (10th Cir.1992) (“[T]he decision how to investigate, who to investigate, and …
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hattaway
See State v. McIntyre, 381 So.2d 408 (La.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 871 , 101 S.Ct. 209 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Piechowicz v. United States
See Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 956 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Pelham v. United States, 661 F.Supp. 1063 , 1065-66 & n. 1 (D.N.J.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Reno Soundingsides
Accord, United States v. Hearst, 663 F.2d 1331, 1337-38 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 1000 , 98 S.Ct. 1666 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp.
See Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles L. Walker v. U-Haul Co. Of Mississippi, U-Haul International, Inc. And Amerco, Etc.
See Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F.2d 343 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980). 3 .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert James Maker, A/K/A Robert Maker, A/K/A R.J. Mahar Constance Bridget Sullivan
(5×)
See Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir.) (“[W]e are free to affirm the district court on any basis which finds support in the record.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles L. Walker v. U-Haul Co. Of Mississippi, U-Haul International, Inc. And Amerco, Etc.
See Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F.2d 343 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Rulli v. United States
See generally Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 951 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Letcher T. White v. Jeffrey Mining MacHinery Company, Jeffrey Galion, Inc., and Dresser Industries, Inc.
See Dual Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Burris Industries, Inc., 619 F.2d 660, 666-67 , 205 USPQ 1157, 1163-64 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
James L. Rogers, III v. Tennessee Valley Authority
See Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 956 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Power & Light Co., 615 F.2d 343, 352-54 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980) (the antitrust laws do not require a public utility to permit resale of its services). 154 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ralph W. Staton v. United States
See Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948 , 951 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Downs v. United States, 522 F.2d 990, 996 (6th Cir. 1975); Depass v. United States, 479 F.Supp. 373, 375 (D.Md.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cargo Service Stations, Inc., T. D. McRae Incorporated, United Petroleum, Inc., Cargo Gasoline Co., Eastern Oil Company
A. McQuade Tours, Inc. v. Consolidated Air Tour Manual Comm., 467 F.2d 178, 187 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1109 , 93 S.Ct. 912 , 34 L.Ed.2d 690 (1973); see Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F.2d 343 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson v. County Of Allegheny
See, e.g., Felix v. Virgin Islands Government, 702 F.2d 54, 57 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980)) 4 This provision, added in 1991, was intended to make clear "that the rule does not apply to preclude any relation back that may be permitted under the applicable limitations law" of the jurisdiction that provides the statute of limitations. 3 James W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nelson v. County of Allegheny
See, e.g., Felix v. Virgin Islands Government, 702 F.2d 54, 57 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Bemitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948 , 950 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980)). 4 .This provision, added in 1991, was intended to make clear "that the rule does not apply to preclude any relation back that may be permitted under the applicable limitations law” of the jurisdiction that provides the statute of limitations. 3 James W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lutheran Hospital of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. Doe
Louis v. Praprotnik (1988), 485 U.S. 112, 120 , 108 S.Ct. 915, 922 , 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (failure to object to a jury instruction does not render the instruction the "law of the case" for purposes of appealing the inconsistent legal theory raised by a previously denied dispositive motion); see also Dual Manufacturing & Engineering v. Burris Industries (1980), 7th Cir., 619 F.2d 660 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 ; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2558 at 670, 671.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geldermann, Inc. v. Financial Management Consultants, Inc.
Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 120 , 108 S.Ct. 915, 922 , 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (plurality opinion) (“[T]he failure to object to a [jury] instruction does not render the instruction the ‘law of the case’ for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”) (citations omitted), cited in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 513-14 , 108 S.Ct. 2510, 2519-20 , 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988) (indicating that it is not improper for court of appeals to judge sufficiency of evidence under properly formulated legal standard, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sottile v. United States
See also Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); (investigative and enforcement decisions in a case involving the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration are within discretionary function exception).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. American Airlines, Inc. And Robert L. Crandall
See also Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 732 F.2d 480, 487 (5th Cir.1984), Mid-Texas Communications Systems, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 615 F.2d 1372, 1385-86 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912 , 101 S.Ct. 286 , 66 L.Ed.2d 140 (1980), Almeda Mall, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 615 F.2d 343, 351 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.
The Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held that “[a] proper motion for a directed verdict and its denial will always preserve for review the question whether under the law truly applicable to the case there was an adequate evidentiary basis for the submission of the case to the jury.” Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hubbard, 203 F.2d 859, 862 (8th Cir.1953) (emphasis added); see also Dual Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Burris Industries, Inc., 619 F.2d 660, 662-63 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Mid-America Food Service v. Ara …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation v. Aspen Skiing Company
The Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held that "[a] proper motion for a directed verdict and its denial will always preserve for review the question whether under the law truly applicable to the case there was an adequate evidentiary basis for the submission of the case to the jury." Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hubbard, 203 F.2d 859, 862 (8th Cir.1953) (emphasis added); see also Dual Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Burris Industries, Inc., 619 F.2d 660, 662-63 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Mid-America Food Service v. Ara Serv…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dennis G. Moore, George R. Moore and Sierra Products, Inc., Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. Wesbar Corporation and Bernard R. Weber, Cross
E-T Industries v. Whittaker Corp., 523 F.2d 636 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 870 , 97 S.Ct. 182 , 50 L.Ed.2d 150 (1976); see also Dual Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Burris Industries, 619 F.2d 660 , 663 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myers v. American Dental Association
See also Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t is well established that we are free to affirm the judgment of the district court on any basis which finds sufficient support in the record."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); PAAC v. Rizzo, 502 F.2d 306 , 308 n. 1 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 , 95 S.Ct. 780 , 42 L.Ed.2d 804 (1975) 15 Compare Levin v. Joint Comm. on Accreditation of Hosps., 354 F.2d 515 (D.C.Cir.1965); Courtesy Chevrolet, Inc. v. Tennessee Walking Horse Ass'n, 344 F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1965); Sherman College of …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myers v. American Dental Ass'n
See also Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir.) (“[I]t is well established that we are free to affirm the judgment of the district court on any basis which finds sufficient support in the record.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); PAAC v. Rizzo, 502 F.2d 306 , 308 n. 1 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 , 95 S.Ct. 780 , 42 L.Ed.2d 804 (1975). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Span-Deck, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. Fab-Con, Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation and Rauenhorst Corporation, Aminnesota Corporation
(2×)
See, e.g., Dual Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc. v. Burris Industries, Inc., 619 F.2d 660, 663-67 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870 , 101 S.Ct. 208 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980); Pederson v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 536 F.2d 1179, 1180-83 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 985 , 97 S.Ct. 505 , 50 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); see also Control Components, Inc. v. Valtek, Inc., 609 F.2d 763, 775 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1022 , 101 S.Ct. 589 , 66 L.Ed.2d 484 (1980) (Rubin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 5 Regardless of whether we apply the substantial evidence test or accept the jury…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bernitsky, t/a Bernitsky Brothers Coal Co., Slope 2
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 80-40.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1980.
Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.