Antitrust. Treble Damage Action. Private Action for Treble Damages Does Not Lie for an Acquisition Violative of Section 7 of the Clayton Act

1965 ◽  
Vol 51 (7) ◽  
pp. 1379
Keyword(s):  
Private Action ◽  
Damage Action

Privacy: Users of Pharmaceutical Websites

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-474
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
District Court ◽  
Traffic Data ◽  
Web Traffic ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Private Action

In In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litigation, website users brought suit claiming that major pharmaceutical corporations and a web monitoring company violated three federal statutes protecting electronic communications and data by collecting web traffic data and personal information about website users. On August 13,2002, the District Court of Massachusetts dismissed these allegations, holding that the defendants were parties to the communications and thus exempted under the statutory language.The court also found that plaintiffs had not suffered an amount of damages required to sustain private action.

pride which makes a mortal forget his place in the order of things), the word is most often used of dealings between human beings. It generally describes behaviour which is uncontrolled and which presupposes a desire to humiliate or at least a contempt for the rights and prestige of others. It could be applied to anything from mockery through verbal insult to physical assault, including rape. However, in law the term was narrower. The law on hybris quoted at Dem. 21.47 appears to cover action, not words. It is likely, moreover, that in legal contexts at least, though the law was imprecise (it appears to have begun: ‘if anyone commits outrage [hybris] against someone . . .’), the offence was generally understood to cover physical violence. It is not clear what converted aikeia into hybris, but it may be suggested that where the speaker could argue that the assault was committed either with the intention of humiliating or with wilful disregard for the status of the victim then the action for outrage might succeed. In the present case the action of Konon in imitating a victorious fighting cock after beating Ariston could be held to prove either. In explaining his reasons for choosing the private action, Ariston naturally places the emphasis on modesty (a public action would require more boldness and greater legal experience than a young man should in this culture possess) and restraint. In the process he suppresses other motives. As was explained in the general introduction, the prosecutor in a public action faced serious penalties if lie either dropped the case or failed to obtain 20 per cent of the judges’ votes. In addition, since on most reconstructions hybris involved the state of mind or intention of the perpetrator it would be more difficult to prove than aikeia, for which the fact of striking first sufficed. Finally, if Konon were convicted in a public action for hybris any fine would go to the state, while the victor in a private action for aikeia stood to gain compensation. The case against Konon is presented with remarkable force, and one’s first impression is that Ariston’s case is overwhelming. As to the assault itself, Ariston has good evidence from a doctor that he was severely beaten. That Konon was actually the perpetrator is suggested by Konon’s behaviour at arbitration (for which Ariston has witness testimony); evidently Konon had difficulty assembling a case, and it appears that it was only when his situation was looking desperate that his associates gave evidence on his behalf. However, it is far from clear that the witnesses who carried Ariston home actually saw the attack; they may merely have found him lying beaten. It may be that the only witness on Ariston’s side was his friend Phanostratos. From §§30–3 one

2002 ◽  
pp. 103-103
Keyword(s):  
Physical Violence ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
The State ◽  
Physical Assault ◽  
Public Action ◽  
Private Action ◽  
State Of Mind ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Contexts

homosexuality are however complex, and the reader interested in pursuing the issue further will find an admirable discussion in K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (London 1978). CASE VI: DEMOSTHENES 54 – AGAINST KONON FOR BATTERY We have here a private action for battery (aikeias dike). A young man named Ariston claims to have been the victim of an unprovoked attack by a middle-aged man named Konon. Although he has brought a private case, Ariston notes that he could have brought a public action for outrage (graphe hybreos). The nature of these actions is discussed in the brief essay at the end of the speech. Both plaintiff and defendant appear to be people of substance, to judge by both the reference to public services (leitourgiai) at the close and the fact that Konon’s associates (§7) include Spintharos, whose father Euboulos was one of the most successful politicians in fourth-century Athens. The date of the action can be fixed by the reference in §3 to garrison duty at Panakton two years before the trial. Demosthenes speaks at 19.326 of an expedition to Panakton in 343, and tells us that during the Sacred War (355–346) no such expedition had been necessary. It is far from clear that the expedition mentioned in Dem. 19 and the guard duty mentioned here are the same kind of operation; nor can we exclude the possibility that Demosthenes is exaggerating. But the evidence such as it is would suggest a date of 357 or 343 for the incidents narrated and 355 or 341 for the hearing. It is difficult to choose with confidence. The association of Konon with the son of Euboulos, whose faction Demosthenes was attacking by the late 350s on the ground of its failure to check the rising power of Macedon, suggests that Demosthenes may have accepted the case from political motives. Unfortunately, even if true, this conjecture does not help for dating, since Demosthenes was still struggling (though more successfully) with this faction in the late 340s. However, since by 341 Demosthenes was one of the leading political figures, he is less likely to have needed, or to have been free, to take on a speechwriting brief. So a date in the 350s seems marginally more likely. [1] I was outrageously assaulted by this Konon, judges, and placed in such a serious condition that for a long time neither my family nor any of the doctors

2002 ◽  
pp. 92-92
Keyword(s):  
Public Services ◽  
Fourth Century ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Public Action ◽  
Private Action ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Rising Power

Legal and Public Policy Implications for the Future of Comparative Advertising: A Look at U-Haul v. Jartran

1989 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryn L. Beck-Dudley ◽  
Terrell G. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Comparative Advertising ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industry Regulation ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Private Action ◽  
Lanham Act ◽  
Legal Fees

This article investigates the regulatory environment for comparative advertising in terms of industry regulation, government regulatory agencies, and private court actions under state law and the federal Lanham Act. Major legal issues are trade disparagement and defamation, trademark infringement and dilution, and deception. The Lanham Act offers protection and redress for parties injured by false, misleading or unfair comparative advertising. Legal theory for application of Lanham to comparative advertising is detailed and implications of the U-Haul vs. Jartran case, where Lanham was applied with U-Haul's being awarded more than forty million dollars in damages and legal fees, are discussed. Several public policy issues are raised including whether the FTC's private action policy serves the public interest given legal risks and costs of defending law suits.

Private Action for Public Nuisance

1966 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 997 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Prosser
Keyword(s):  
Private Action ◽  
Public Nuisance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document