Timber Industry Practices in the Tongass National Forest, Alaska: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management, and Bonneville Power Administration of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, on Timber Industry Practices in the Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Hearing Held in Washington, D.C., June 29, 1983
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management, and Bonneville Power Administration
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983 - 410 էջ
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Այլ խմբագրություններ - View all
action additional administrative Agriculture antitrust Antitrust Division Appeals appraisal Attorney basis believe cedar Chairman Chief Civil claims companies competition concern continuing contract cost Counsel court Criminal damages decision defendants Department of Justice determine developed discussed district Division documents effect established evidence Exhibit fact File findings Forest Service Fowler Furth further Galdabini going Government Huckaby increase independent indicates industry Ketchikan laws letter loggers long-term Lumber Management March matter needed occurred offered Office operations period Peterson possible potential practices Pulp Company pulp mills purchaser question reason recommendations records redetermination referred Regional Reid Brothers request result rule Sandor Seiberling sold Southeast Alaska specific statement stumpage Subcommittee supply Thank timber sales Tongass National Forest trial United violations volume Weaver
Էջ 229 - in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court . of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The
Էջ 230 - . . .a finding is 'clearly erroneous ' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co.. et al. 333 US 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525,
Էջ 221 - conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, one hundred thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the
Էջ 221 - l) provides: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any
Էջ 240 - Waiver. The failure of a party to serve a demand as required by this rule and to file it as required by Rule '5(d) constitutes a waiver by him of trial by jury. A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.
Էջ 240 - the parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record, consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury or (2) the court upon motion or of its
Էջ 228 - 2) reads: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one million dollars, or by
Էջ 240 - By jury. When trial by jury has been demanded as provided in Rule 38, the action shall be designated upon the docket as a jury action. The trial of all issues so demanded shall be by jury, unless
Էջ 249 - provides: No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or
Էջ 230 - precise proof,' the factfinder may "conclude as a matter of just and reasonable inference from the proof of defendants' wrongful acts and their tendency to injure plaintiffs' business, and from the evidence of the decline in prices, profits and values, not shown to be attributable to other causes, that defendants' wrongful acts had caused damage to the plaintiffs.