Syufy Enterprises v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.
Syufy Enters. v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 479 U.S. 1031 (1987)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 11 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(explaining that abstention is the exception, and not the rule)
-
(stating "courts have relied upon [Rule 503] as an accurate definition of the federal common law of attorney-client privilege" and affirming order quashing subpoena for taped statements made by client at direction of a lawyer)
-
(questioning the specific intent requirement but holding that a judgment n.o.v. should have been granted in any event where there was no evidence that more than one of the alleged co-conspirators had some awareness that the underlying conduct was anticompetitive or monopolistic)
-
("[A] district court has little or no discretion to abstain in a case that does not meet traditional abstention requirements.")
-
("neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever decided whether a market share as low as 60-69% is sufficient standing alone to sustain ... a finding [of market power])
-
(state law at issue did not relate to insurance regulation, nor the transferring or spreading of the policyholder's risk, and it required neither a consideration of any other Pennsylvania statute nor a complicated regulatory scheme)
-
(where resolution of the federal issues required immersion of the court in the technicalities of the state scheme of rehabilitation of insolvent insurers, abstention was proper)
-
(appeal of ruling on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict)
Cited by 113 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.