Lindell v. United States

rule of reason considers “agreements whose competitive effect can only be evaluated by analyzing the facts peculiar to the business involved, the particular restraint’s history, and the reasons it was imposed” | rule of reason considers "agreements whose competitive effect can only be evaluated by analyzing the facts peculiar to the business involved, the particular restraint's history, and the reasons it was imposed" | “In order to prove an abridgment of the sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel based on an allegedly wrongful denial of a continuance, a defendant must first demonstrate that the district court ‘abused its discretion’ in denying the motion.”