Arizona v. City of Austin

Ninth Circuit

Arizona v. City of Austin

940 F.2d 1583

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 28, 1991·No. Nos. 84-2865, 85-1670 and 85-1722 to 85-1724·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The mandate of the United States Supreme Court certified on April 18, 1989, in California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86, reversed the judgment of this court. Accordingly, we vacate our opinion at 817 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir.1987), reverse the district court, and remand to the district court for further proceedings which are consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and HUG, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The mandate of the United States Supreme Court certified on April 18, 1989, in California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86, reversed the judgment of this court. Accordingly, we vacate our opinion at 817 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir.1987), reverse the district court, and remand to the district court for further proceedings which are consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Arizona v. City of Austin, 940 F.2d 1583 (9th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

940 F.2d 1583 (Arizona v. City of Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation. State of Arizona v. City of Austin, and Portland Cement Association v. Arc Corporation, Class Members-Appellees. State of California v. Portland Cement Association, State of Minnesota v. Portland Cement Association, Arizona Slump Block, Inc. v. Portland Cement Association City of Austin, Smith & Green Corporation v. Portland Cement Association City of Austin, State of Alabama v. Portland Cement Association

940 F.2d 1583 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Opinion

Related