Legal Opinion
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided May 26, 1981No. MDL-456PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*359MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOSEPH H. YOUNG, District Judge.
Currently before the Court are two separate Motions for Protective Order to stay discovery pending completion of criminal proceedings. The first Motion has been filed on behalf of Croyste Toyota and Waldorf Toyota [the Croyste Motion], two dealer defendants in the Maryland parens patriae action. The second Motion is on behalf of Anton Motors, Calvert Motors, Tyson’s Toyota, and Alexandria Toyota [the Anton Motion], four defendant dealers in the District of Columbia parens case.1 Both Motions seek a stay of these proceedings pending…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. KordelSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
3Cited by27 opinions
- Estado Libre Asociado v. Casta Developers, S.E.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2004
- Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1989
- Arden Way Associates v. BoeskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Schuessler v. Benchmark Marketing & Consulting, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1993
- Klein v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.