Dawkins v. Nabisco, Inc.

Inducing favorable governmental action, even for anticompeti-tive purposes, is not a violation of the antitrust law | "Only by inference can the existence of intent — or the differentiation between its forms, such as general or specific — be determined" | “Only by inference can the existence of intent — or the differentiation between its forms, such as general or specific — be determined” | Where identity of confidential informant was not necessary to assure a fair opportunity to defendants to prepare their defense, identity could be -withheld | “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and may not move to suppress information derived from it” | “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and may not move to suppress information derived from it.” | “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an “aggrieved person” and may not move to suppress information derived from it.” | “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and may not move to suppress information derived from it.” | one lawsuit does not constitute a pattern | one lawsuit does not constitute a pattern