Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiffs' Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Response to Comment

David Domina
Additional contact information
David Domina: DominaLaw pc llo, Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2004, vol. 2, issue 1, pages 1106-1106

Abstract: Thomas C. Green's comment on the article "Proving Anti-Competitive Conduct in the U.S. Courtroom: The Plaintiffs' Argument in Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc." Vol. 2 [2004], Article 8, ignores hundreds of exhibits, thousands of data parts, extensive testimony, and resorts to name calling. Proof is not litter, and evidence is not rank speculation. Inferences from evidence may be characterized by opposing counsel as "baseless opinion," and this is the substance of advocacy. But the Court's first trial ruling was correctly described in the original article. Mr. Green refers not to the Court's Order entering judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the jury's verdict, but, instead, to an Order concerning taxation of costs.

Keywords: Pickett; Tyson; captive supplies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Note: oai:bepress:jafio-1106

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.bepress.c ... e=1106&context=jafio (application/pdf)
Subscription to the journal may be required to access full texts.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.bepress.com/subscriptions.html

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization from Berkeley Electronic Press
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().