Arizona v. Arizona Podiatry Association, 1985-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,487
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Podiatry Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients
Arizona v. Arizona Radiological Society; 1979-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 62,683
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Radiological Society established bylaw and policy statements requiring members to work only on a fee-for-service basis.
Arizona v. Arizona State Psychological Association; 1988-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,928 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1988)
The Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona State Psychological Association restrained members from truthful advertising and non-coercively soliciting clients
Arizona v. Chiropractic Association of Arizona, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,737 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1985)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant Chiropractic Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients.
California v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. S.F. No. 24699 (Cal. 1996)
The State of California sought damages, administrative costs and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi) conspired to fix the price of its jeans, thus resulting in overcharges to consumers during the 1970’s
Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, et al., 457 U.S. 332 (1982)
State petitioned for Summary Judgment, alleging that Defendant members of the Maricopa County Medical Society (Maricopa) made agreements with competing member physicians to set maximum fees that member physicians could claim in full payment of health services provided to policyholders.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC et al., No. 04-C-254M (Cir. Ct. Marshall Cty. 2004)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit and consent order to settle the lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, and SmithKline Beechham Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drugs, Paxil, Augmentin, and Relafen. Paxil is commonly prescribed for anxiety and depression, Augmentin is an antibiotic, and Relafen is a non-steroidal pain reliever. The State alleged that the defendants had unlawfully attempted to extend their patent protection for the three prescription drugs. After an investigation, the State reached an agreement with the defendants to settle the manner. Under the terms of the settlement, the State received $500,000.00.
Archer v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Vitamins Inc., Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A.; Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., LTD.; Eisai Co., Ltd; Takeda Chemical Industries, LTD., and Basf Corporation
State intervened in private class action suit following guilty pleas by vitamin manufacturers.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., No. 99-C-2349 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cty. 2000)
Suit alleged price-fixing in the commercial tissue paper market. After dismissal from federal court, state refiled in state court and parties reached a settlement.
West Virginia ex rel. Tompkins v. Northwestern Disposal Co. et al., No. 90-C-130 (Cir. Ct. Wood Cty. 1990).
Case alleged monopolization by owner of only landfill within geographic area.
