Cluster 438823

But see Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir.1984), aff’d, 472 U.S. at 585 , 105 S.Ct. at 2847.

Utah 2022); BC Tech., Inc. v. Ensil Int’l Corp., 464 F. App’x 689, 704 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The assumptions were certainly subject to debate but had sufficient evidentiary support to pass the admissibility threshold.”); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 , 1524 (10th Cir. 1984) (“Although there may have been considerable evidence contradicting the expert’s assumptions, his assumptions were not without support.”); United States v. Crabbe, 556 F. Sup…

We are dealing with what has been called the `synergistic effect' of the mixture of the elements."); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 , 1522 n.18 (10th Cir. 1984) ("Each of the six [aspects of defendant's exclusionary conduc 2 viewed in isolation need not be supported by sufficient evidence to amount to a S 2 violation.

See BC Tech., Inc. v. Ensil Int’l Corp., 464 F. App’x 689, 704 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The assumptions were certainly subject to debate but had sufficient evidentiary support to pass the admissibility threshold.”); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1526 (10th Cir. 1984) (“If the calculations upon which the loss of profits are based are estimated in any reasonable way and the underlying assumptions on which the [expert] relied are not without support…

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1524 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d on other grounds, 472 U.S. 585 (1985).

Evid. 702 (reflecting the 2023 amendment to the Rule). 186 See Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1524 (10th Cir. 1984) (affirming admission of expert’s testimony though “there may have been considerable evidence contradicting the expert’s assumptions” because the “assumptions were not without support” and “the full burden of exploration of the facts and assumptions underlying the testimony of an expert witness” falls “on the shoulder of opposin…

See BC Tech., Inc. v. Ensil Int’l Corp., 464 F. App’x 689, 704 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The assumptions were certainly subject to debate but had sufficient evidentiary support to pass the admissibility threshold.”); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1526 (10th Cir. 1984) (“If the calculations upon which the loss of profits are based are estimated in any reasonable way and the underlying assumptions on which the [expert] relied are not without support…

Evid. 702(b), (d). 142 Id. at R. 702(b). 143 Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1524 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding it was not an abuse of discretion to admit expert testimony relying on assumptions which “were not without support”); see also Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 295 F.3d 408, 414 (3d Cir. 2002) (“It is an abuse of discretion to admit expert testimony which is based on assumptions lacking any factual foundation in the record.”); T…

Id. (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1524 (10th Cir. 1984)).

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1524 (10th Cir. 1984).

Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶¶ 770-74, at 195-295 (4th ed. 2015); 13 Phillip E, Areeda & Herbert Hoven-kamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 2221c-d, at 407-11 (3d ed. 2012); see also, e.g., Pittsburg Cty., 358 F.3d at 721; Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1519-21 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985), and although its elements are more consistent with § 2, see Pittsburg Cty., 358 F.3d at 721 (listing the …

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1526 (10th Cir. 1984) (quoting King & King Enters, v. Champlin Petrol.

If the calculations are “estimated in any reasonable way” and the expert’s assumptions “are not without support in the record, the calculations may be upheld.... ” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1526 (10th Cir.1984) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Wildlife Fed’n v. United States, 792 F.2d 981 , 986 (10th Cir.1986); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1527 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985).

Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 119-120 , 108 S.Ct. 915 , 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (plurality op.); Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1517 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985).

R.Civ.P. 51(d)(2). 8 However, this is an endeavor we undertake “if the instructions given were ‘patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial,’ ” Cadena v. Pacesetter Corp., 224 F.3d 1203 , 1212 n. 6 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 553 (10th Cir.1999)), and we only order a new trial “if an error in the instructions resulted in a ‘miscarriage of justice,’ ” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984…

However, Luke-Sanchez’s objection at trial to that instruction rested on a different theory — that “trading drugs for a gun is not ‘use’ of the gun in violation of 924(c).” As such, only that ground for objection — that trading drugs for guns is not punishable under the statute — is properly preserved on appeal. 2 See Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tels., Inc., 931 F.2d 655 , 660 (10th Cir.1991) (“A party’s objection to a jury instruction must be sufficiently clear such ‘that the groun…

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 411 F.3d 1030, 1045 (9th Cir.2005)(properly relied upon the fundamental assumption that defendant maintained artificially high costs in the market); Avery Dennison Corp. v. Four Pillars Enterprise Co., 45 Fed.Appx. 479, 487 (6th Cir. Sept.3, 2002)(damages model relied assumed central questions of liability in the case, which were properly presented to the jury); Rossi v. Standard Roofing, Inc., 156 F.3d 452, 4…

Accordingly, “the grounds stated in [an] objection must be obvious, plain, or unmistakable.” Medlock, 164 F.3d at 553 (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984)).

To preserve the objection, a party must proffer the same grounds raised on appeal, Reed v. Landstar Ligon, Inc., 314 F.3d 447, 452 (10th Cir.2002) (quoting Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tels., Inc., 931 F.2d 655 , 660 (10th Cir. 1991)), with sufficient clarity to render the grounds “ ‘obvious, plain, or unmistakable.’ ” Comcoa, 931 F.2d at 660 (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir. 1984)).

The “miscarriage of justice” must be “patently erroneous and prejudicial.” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd on other grounds, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985).

“Courts repeatedly have cautioned that the plain error exception is limited to exceptional cases where the error 'has seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' ” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984) (quoting Rowe International, Inc. v. J-B Enterprises, Inc., 647 F.2d 830, 835 (8th Cir.1981)); see also 9A C.Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2558, at 462 (1995) (…

Under the essential facilities (or “bottleneck”) doctrine, “a business or group of businesses which controls a scarce facility has an obligation to give *1287 competitors reasonable access to it.” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1519 (10th Cir.1984), aff 'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985).

A party's stated grounds for objection to a jury instruction must be "`obvious, plain, or unmistakable.'" Comcoa, 931 F.2d at 660 (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984)). 13 Although Plaintiffs clearly objected to Instruction 14 below, Plaintiffs raise the proximate cause argument as grounds for its objection for the first time on appeal.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1513 (1984), does not hold that a monopolist must'make a facility available at a competitive rather than monopolistic price. 14 Indeed, such a ruling has great logical appeal, given that such determinations of “reasonable price” made by any court can often be Sisyphean undertakings — “nothing less than price regulation of the kind undertaken by regulatory agencies — something for…

Under this standard, a court will reverse only in “an exceptional circumstance-one where the error was ‘patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial.’ ” Giron, *1228 191 F.3d at 1289 (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984)).

Accordingly, “the grounds stated in [an] objection must be obvious, plain, or unmistakable.” Id. (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984)).

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984) (quotation omitted).

Because Camfield did not state the' grounds of his objection in “obvious, plain, or unmistakable” terms, Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984), our review is for plain error. “ ‘To constitute plain error, the district court’s mistake must have been both obvious and substantial.’ ” Davoll, 194 F.3d at 1141 (quoting Cartier v. Jackson, 59 F.3d 1046, 1050 (10th Cir.1995)).

Both because we lack those findings and the College did not include the entire trial tran *918 script in the record on appeal, this court cannot conclude that the giving of the instruction "seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, “the grounds stated in [an] objection must be obvious, plain, or unmistakable.” Id. (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985)).

The error must amount to a “‘miscarriage of justice’ [and] must be ‘patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial.’” Polys, 941 F.2d at 1408 (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co. , 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd , 472 U.S. 585 (1985)).

“Because the purpose of the objection is to give the court an opportunity to correct any mistake before the jury enters deliberations ... an excessively vague or general objection to the propriety of a given instruction is insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.” Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 553 (10th Cir.1999) (citation omitted); see also Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner, 104 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.1997); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. A…

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 51; Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 553 (10th Cir.1999); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1513 (10th Cir.1984).

This review in civil cases is limited to those exceptional situations in which the error “has seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co. , 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted).

While defendants apparently did not object to the jury instructions at trial, we may review civil instructions for plain error in limited instances involving a miscarriage of justice or instructions “‘patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial.’” See Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S. Ct. 2847 (1985) (quoting Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917, 925 (10th Cir. 1984)); s…

While defendants apparently did not object to the jury instructions at trial, we may review civil instructions for plain error in limited instances involving a miscarriage of justice or instructions " 'patently plainly erroneous and prejudicial.' " See Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985) (quoting Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917, 925 (10…

P. 51 ("No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.”); Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Telephones, Inc., 931 F.2d 655, 660 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A party’s objection to a jury instruction must be sufficiently clear such 'that the grounds stated in the objection [are] obvious, plain, or unmistakable.’ …

Cf. United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 675 (10th Cir.) (indicating that review is for plain error where defendant fails to deliver contemporaneous objection), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 970 (1995); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1984) (stating that when an objection is not made before jury retires, court -10- reviews only plainly erroneous and prejudicial instructions), aff’d, 472 U.S. 585 (1985).

Cf. United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 675 (10th Cir.) (indicating that review is for plain error where defendant fails to deliver contemporaneous objection), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 970 , 116 S.Ct. 432 , 133 L.Ed.2d 347 (1995); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984) (stating that when an objection is not made before jury retires, court reviews only plainly erroneous and prejudicial instructions), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct.…

World Of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 756 F.2d 1467, 1478 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 823 , 106 S.Ct. 77 , 88 L.Ed.2d 63 (1985); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1525 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985).

Co., 811 F.2d 1387, 1390 (10th Cir. 1987); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 472 U.S. 585 (1985). -10- Plaintiff submitted his proposed instructions on the first day of trial, and while the court indicated they were filed substantially out of time, the court did not reject the proposed instructions as untimely. 2 After the court instructed the jury, and importantly, before the jury retired, the court asked if there…

Co., 811 F.2d 1387, 1390 (10th Cir.1987); Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 (1985). 26 Plaintiff submitted his proposed instructions on the first day of trial, and while the court indicated they were filed substantially out of time, the court did not reject the proposed instructions as untimely. 2 After the court instructed the jury, and importantly, before the jury retired, the court asked if there wer…

Cf. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1517 (10th Cir.1984) (holding that where defendant raised issue in motion for directed verdict, it preserved opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of evidence as to that issue on appeal, regardless of its failure to object to the jury instructions concerning the issue), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 (1985). 13 Plaintiffs have failed to present this court with a complete transcript of the testimony and evidence upo…

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1517-23 (10th Cir.1984).

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1517-23 (10th Cir.1984).

Artos maintains that this characterization is not warranted by existing law insofar as the essential facilities eases have involved the domination of “facilities” of a “grand scale” such as the Chicago stadium, Fishman, 807 F.2d 520 , millions of miles of telephone cable, MCI Communications Corp., 708 F.2d 1081 , three of four ski slopes in Aspen, Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1521 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 …

See also Hinds v. General Motors Corp., 988 F.2d 1039, 1047 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that " 'a party's failure to object to a verdict on the ground of inconsistency prior to the jury's discharge waives his right to raise the issue in a posttrial motion or on appeal unless the verdict is inconsistent on its face so that entry of judgment upon the verdict is plain error' " (quoting Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd., 791 F.2d 1416, 1424 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 4…

See also Hinds v. General Motors Corp., 988 F.2d 1039, 1047 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that “ ‘a party’s failure to object to a verdict on the ground of inconsistency prior to the jury’s discharge waives his right to raise the issue in a posttrial motion or on appeal unless the verdict is inconsistent on its face so that entry of judgment upon the verdict is plain error’ ” (quoting Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd., 791 F.2d 1416, 1424 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 4…

"A party's objection to a jury instruction must be sufficiently clear such 'that the grounds stated in the objection [are] obvious, plain, or unmistakable.' " Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Tel., Inc., 931 F.2d 655 , 660 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1514 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 , 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985)); see also Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc., 979 F.2d 1462, 1468 (10th Cir.1992) (noting that "[a] part…