Legal Opinion
Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 20, 1999No. C-98-3009 MHPPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATEL, Chief Judge.
On August 3, 1998, plaintiff Modesto Irrigation District, Inc. (“MID”) filed this action alleging that defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG & E”) and Dyn-ergy Power Services, Inc. (“DESTEC”) refused to deliver wholesale electric power to NM in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state tort laws. In particular, MID alleged (1) violations of section I of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the Cartwright Act, Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 16720 et seq., California’s antitrust statute by both PG & E and DESTEC; (2) tortious interference…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
- Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 2001
- In Re ZunigaUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · 2005
- Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2004
- Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Co.District Court, D. Montana · 2000