Legal Opinion

In Re Minolta Camera Products Antitrust Litigation

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided June 23, 1987No. B-86-613, B-86-2771, B-86-3070 and B-86-3072 to B-86-3105PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALTER E. BLACK, Jr., District Judge.

Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia (“the States”), acting as parens patriae on behalf of their resident consumers, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(l), initiated the instant antitrust actions. The States of New York and Maryland filed their Complaints on February 24,1986, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed its Complaint on April 11, 1986. After the filing of these initial Complaints, extensive settlement negotiations ensued between counsel for Minolta Corporation (“Minolta”) and counsel for these three States. These negotiations proved to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rosenberg v. Jack Foley Realty, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1979
  2. State Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. States of NY and Md. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
  2. Shepherd Park Citizens Ass'n v. General Cinema Beverages of Washington, D.C., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Diakos v. HSS Systems, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API