Syufy Enterprises v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

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 | 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." | “[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 | 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 | appeal of ruling on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict