In re COORDINATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA; Texaco, Inc.; Union Oil Co. of California; Atlantic Richfield Co.; Exxon Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; and Shell Oil Co., Defendants-Appellees, and
Continental Oil Co.; Gulf Oil Corp.; Phillips Petroleum Co.; Caribou Four Corners, Inc.; and Powerine Oil Co., Defendants.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA; Texaco, Inc.; Union Oil Co. of California; Exxon Corp.; Gulf Oil Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; and Shell Oil Co., Defendants-Appellees, and
Atlantic Richfield Co.; Getty Oil Co.; and Phillips Petroleum Co., Defendants.
STATE OF OREGON, on behalf of itself, its residents and all political subdivisions within the State similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA; Texaco, Inc.; Union Oil Co. of California; Atlantic Richfield Co.; Exxon Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; and Shell Oil Co., Defendants-Appellees, and
Getty Oil Co.; Gulf Oil Corp.; and Phillips Petroleum Co., Defendants.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, on behalf of itself and its public entities and residents, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA; Texaco, Inc.; Union Oil Co. of California; Atlantic Richfield Co.; Exxon Corp.; Gulf Oil Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Shell Oil Co., Defendants-Appellees, and
Getty Oil Co.; and Phillips Petroleum Co., Defendants.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued and Submitted July 15, 1988.
Decided June 22, 1990.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael I. Spiegel, argued, Wayne M. Liao, Charles M. Kagay, Spiegel Liao & Kagay, San Francisco, Cal., Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., Alison J. Butterfield, Chief Counsel, Antitrust Div., and Gary P. Brady, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant State of Ariz.
John K. Van De Kamp, Atty. Gen., Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Sanford N. Gruskin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas P. Dove, Lawrence R. Tapper, Mary Elizabeth Alden, and H. Chester Horn, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant State of Cal.
Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Michael D. Reynolds, David L. Slader, and Paul J. Sundermeier, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salem, Or., for plaintiff-appellant State of Or.
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., and John R. Ellis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant State of Wash.
Robert A. Mittelstaedt, argued, Roderick M. Thompson, and Craig E. Stewart, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee Chevron Corp. (formerly Standard Oil Co. of California).
Otis Pratt Pearsall, Philip H. Curtis, Bruce R. Kelly, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, Ronald C. Redcay, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Los Angeles, Cal., and Donald A. Bright, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee Atlantic Richfield Co.
Charles W. Matthews, Houston, Tex., Philip K. Verleger, and David A. Destino, McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee Exxon Corp.
Harry P. Davis, Jr., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee Chevron Corp. (formerly Gulf Oil Corp.).
Andrew J. Kilcarr, Maureen O'Bryon, Janet McDavid, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., and Charles F. Rice, New York City, for defendant-appellee Mobil Oil Corp.
William R. O'Brien, Robert M. Bruskin, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., and Raymond V. McCord, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee Shell Oil Co.
G. Kenneth Handley, Robert D. Wilson, White Plains, N.Y., and Leslie C. Randall, Universal City, Cal., for defendant-appellee Texaco Inc.
Darryl Snider, Henry J. Kupperman, Scott P. Koepke, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Los Angeles, Cal., William J. Taylor, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., Harold E. Zahner, and Robert G. Pott, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee Union Oil Co. of California.
Before WALLACE, NELSON, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
NELSON, Circuit Judge:
The States of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants in these consolidated antitrust actions. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
I. INTRODUCTION
Between June 1975 and August 1977, the plaintiffs filed their complaints in these actions, alleging several violations of the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
