This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Corporate

Oct. 8, 2002

Prevailing Cartwright Act Defendant May Not Recover Its Attorney Fees

Focus Column - By Mitchell S. Shapiro - The allocation of attorney fees in antitrust cases is of considerable interest to the franchise practitioner. Actions against franchisers for price fixing, exclusive dealing, illegal tie-ins and other antitrust abuses are common. Indeed, it was antitrust class actions such as Siegel v. Chicken Delight, 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971), that, to a great degree, gave impetus to franchising as a specialty area of practice.

        Focus Column
        
        By Mitchell S. Shapiro
        
        The allocation of attorney fees in antitrust cases is of considerable interest to the franchise practitioner. Actions against franchisers for price fixing, exclusi...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)