Legal Opinion
In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation
District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Decided October 2, 1995No. 2:92cv73-D-O; MDL No. 928PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAVIDSON, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the motion of the plaintiffs to release certain grand jury transcripts. Finding the motion well taken, the same shall be granted.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Prior to the institution of this civil action, the United States instituted criminal antitrust prosecutions for conduct arising out of many of the same operative facts as the case at bar. The origin of these criminal prosecutions was a federal grand jury empaneled in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As with most grand juries, witnesses were called to testify and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Jencks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- McDonnell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Catfish Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1996
- In Re Special Grand Jury 89-2Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Callahan v. A.E v. Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Cargill Ferrous International v. M/V ElikonDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Grand Jury 89-2 v.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998