Ohio v. The Frederick C. Smith Clinic, Inc., et al., No. 98 CV 0033 (Oh. Ct. Comm. Pleas 1998)
State of Ohio filed suit to preclude the merger of Marion General Hospital and MedCenter Hospital. Concern centered on competition in the market for outpatient services. Case settled.
Ohio v. Maccaferri Gabions Manufacturing Co., Inc. et al.
Ohio Attorney General sought damages against two manufacturers of gabions (wire mesh baskets designed to be filled with stones and wired together?used for flood control) for market allocation and price fixing. Investigation was precipitated by a plea in a similar federal case.
Ohio v. Jones Chemicals, Inc. et al.
State of Ohio sought to recover damages from chemical companies for price fixing and customer allocation on packaged chlorine.
Ohio v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
State of Ohio filed suit on behalf of 25 Toledo area school districts claiming that BFI and its competitors allocated the waste removal market in the Toldeo/Lucas county area. Case was settled
Ohio v. Duellman Electric Supply Co. et al.
State of Ohio filed suit on behalf of five school districts in the Dayton area. Complaint accused the defendants of meeting monthly to fix prices of electrical wire and conduit. Case was settled by consent decree.
Ohio v. British Petroleum et al.
State of Ohio filed a complaint regarding the BP/Amoco merger, alleging potential violations of state antitrust laws.
Ohio v. A.F. Beil Electric, Inc. et al.
State of Ohio on behalf of Youngstown State University filed suit against the defendants for bid-rigging. The alleged activity surrounded the electrical bid for the construction of a new stadium at Youngstown State. Case settled
Ohio v. Ohio Vision Service et al.
State of Ohio sued the Ohio Vision Service under the Sherman Act for unlawfully price fixing and devising a scheme to boycott competitors
Ohio ex rel. Montgomery v. Allied Waste Industries (Court of Common Pleas, Richmond Cty. 2000)
State challenged acquisiton of waste hauler in Mansfield Ohio area, alleging undue concentration in a two-county market for commercial waste disposal.
Connecticut v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation), MDL No. 1290 (D.D.C. June 15, 2000) 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002); No. 98 CV 3115 (D.D.C. 2000) – complaint
Plaintiff States alleged that Mylan Laboratories, Inc.(Mylan) and other drug companies entered into illegal agreements to monopolize the market for certain generic anti-anxiety drugs.
