Kienlen v. Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• Inducing favorable governmental action, even for anticompeti-tive purposes, is not a violation of the antitrust law
• “Only by inference can the existence of intent — or the differentiation between its forms, such as general or specific — be determined”
• Where identity of confidential informant was not necessary to assure a fair opportunity to defendants to prepare their defense, identity could be -withheld
• “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and may not move to suppress information derived from it”
• “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to any conversation intercepted during that tap is not an “aggrieved person” and may not move to suppress information derived from it.”
• “a person who was not named in the wiretap order and was not a party to a conversation intercepted during that tap is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and may not move to suppress information derived from it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).