Question

1. The court cited to the rules of interpretation for inferring conspiracy through indirect evidence. The court ruled, however, that there was direct evidence here and thus the evidence was sufficient to go to trial. Why did the court discuss the inference limitations?
2. Why does the court require the plaintiff to have extra proof against actions that are ambiguous?
3. The court discussed horizontal and vertical conspiracy. Who was involved in the horizontal conspiracy, and who was involved in the vertical conspiracy?


$1.99
Sales0
Views51
Comments0
  • CreatedSeptember 23, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000