In re CEMENT AND CONCRETE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and
Portland Cement Association, et al., Defendants,
v.
ARC CORPORATION, et al., Class Members-Appellees.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
ARIZONA SLUMP BLOCK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION; City of Austin, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
SMITH & GREEN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION; City of Austin, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 28, 1991.
August 28, 1991.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Thomas Greene, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., Patricia A. Cutler, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., Thomas F. Catania, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., James Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants States of Cal., Minn., and Ala.
Kenneth R. Reed and Dee Ann Mowry Rogers, Phoenix, Arizona, for plaintiff-appellant State of Ariz.
Carl W. Divelbiss, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellants Arizona Slump Block, Inc. and Smith & Green Corp.
David J. Leonard and David H. Nix, Tucson, Ariz., for class members-appellees Allied Concrete, Inc., et al.
Kurt W. Melchior, San Francisco, Cal., for class members-appellees Arc Corp. and its subsidiaries.
Ralph E. Hunsaker, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant Arizona Slump Block, Inc.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
ORDER
The mandate of the United States Supreme Court certified on April 18, 1989, in California v. ARC America Corp.,490 U.S. 93, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86, reversed the judgment of this court. Accordingly, we vacate our opinion at 817 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir.1987), reverse the district court, and remand to the district court for further...
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.
