United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a burden to “clearly” disprove future anti-competitive effects is too onerous a standard for judging the burden of production
• noting that a burden to \clearly\ disprove future anti-competitive effects is too onerous a standard for judging the burden of production
• noting that a burden to “clearly” disprove future anti-competitive effects is too onerous a standard for judging the burden of production
• listing factors that might militate against finding an antitrust violation, even assuming market concentration exists
• noting the rebuttal evidence should “discredit] the data underlying the initial presumption in the government’s favor”
• calling the “distinction between [the burden of production] and the ultimate burden of persuasion” “always an elusive distinction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).