Search for: "Mack v. Toledo" Results 1 - 6 of 6
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jul 2010, 3:30 pm
Contrary to the complaining dealer’s assertion, the court was not required to instruct the jury that it must accept the dealer’s offering of direct evidence as sufficient and credible to determine that the manufacturer conspired to violate Sec. 1, the appellate court added.The July 7 decision is Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. [read post]