Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Services
Home > Law Firm Profile > Practice Areas & Industries > Group Profile

Practice Areas & Industries: Crowe & Dunlevy, A Professional Corporation

 



Crowe & Dunlevy, A Professional Corporation


Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Crowe & Dunlevy's Antitrust Counseling and Litigation practice offers services for both plaintiffs and defendants in local, regional and national matters.


 

Services Available

Three cases that illustrate Crowe & Dunlevy's capacity to effectively handle antitrust litigation of a national scope are:

  • Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia v. NCAA, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)
  • Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc. and Getty Oil Co., 1984-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) p. 65,848 (N.D. Okla. 1984), aff'd Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 1984-1 Trade Case. (CCH) p. 65,896 (10th Cir. 1984)
  • Indianapolis Motor Speedway, et al. v. Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc., et al.,Case No. IP96/0642C, U.S.D.C. So. Dist. Indiana, Indianapolis Div. (1996).

Crowe & Dunlevy's litigation practice of antitrust law has included many cases, some of which were settled and some of which were tried. The Firm is well equipped to handle either. Antitrust cases that have been tried to conclusion involved:

  • Sherman Act, Section 1 and Section 2, including price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying, predatory pricing, monopolization and attempt to monopolize.
  • Clayton Act, Section 3, including tying and exclusive dealing.
  • Robinson/Patman Act, including primary and secondary line injury, cost justification and meeting competition defenses, and promotional allowance discrimination.
  • Clayton Act, Section 7, including private actions to enjoin corporate take overs on the grounds that they violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
  • Oklahoma State Antitrust laws.

Crowe & Dunlevy had substantial involvement in drafting the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, which encompasses Oklahoma's antitrust laws.

Oklahoma state antitrust laws are unique in that a claim for unreasonable restraint of trade under state law does not require a conspiracy, yet allows the same remedies as federal law, such as treble damages. Examples of significant cases Crowe & Dunlevy has handled include:

  • Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533 (10th Cir. 1996)
  • Beville v. Curry, 39 P.3d 754 (Okla. 2001)
  • Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27, 71 P.3d5 (Okla. 2003)


 
Matter Experience
  Reported Cases
 
  UNITED INV. LIFE INS. CO. v. WADDELL & REED, January 20, 2005
WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. VISA INC., January 4, 2005
KNOLOGY, INC. v. INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS CO., December 29, 2004