Amicus Curiae Filings and Other Competition Advocacy
- August 20, 2018, Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission [No. 18-1051 (L), (D.C. Cir.)]
Brief for the States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, the District of Columbia, the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. - December 19, 2017, State of Ohio v. American Express Co., [No. 16-1454 (S. Ct.)]
Brief for the States of New York, Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners. - December 12, 2017, Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle, [No. 17-35640, (9th Cir.)]
Brief for the States of New York, Hawai'i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees. - September 5, 2014, McWane, INC., v. Federal Trade Commission [No.14-11363 (11th Cir)]
Brief for Amici Curiae States of New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawai'i, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in Support of Respondent. - November 01, 2012, FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [No. 12-416 (S. Ct.)]
Brief for the States of New York, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioner. - May 24, 2012, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, v. Sandisk Corporation [No. 12-1183 (Fed. Cir)]
Brief for States of New York, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee. - January 17th, 2008, In the matter of NINE WEST GROUP INC., a corporation [Docket No. C-3937 (FTC)]
Amended comments of the States of New York and the States of Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, urging denial of Nine West's petition. - December 28, 2007, In the matter of NINE WEST GROUP INC., a corporation [Docket No. C-3937 (FTC)]
Comments of the States of New York and the States of Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, urging denial of Nine West's petition. - May 30, 2007, In Re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, United States Court of Appeals [No. 06-5525 cv (2nd Cir.)]
Brief for states as Amici Curiae supporting Plaintiffs-Appellants (prepared by New York State and seeking reversal of the District Court's holding that consumers and other purchasers who paid inflated prices for patented products lack standing to assert antitrust claims based on the defendant's procurement of the patent by fraud). - Feb. 26, 2007, Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., [No. 06-480 (5th Cir.)]
Brief for the 37 States as Amici Curiae in Supporting Respondent (prepared by New York and advocating that vertical minimum resale price maintenance should continue to be illegal per se). - November 21, 2006, Sperry v. Crompton Corp. (N.Y. Ct. App.)
Brief of State of New York as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Sperry. - April 29, 2006, Sperry v. Crompton Corp. (N.Y. Ct. App.)
Brief of the Attorney General of the State of New York as Amicus Curiae in Support of Motion for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeals. - January 23, 2006, Cunningham v. Bayer AG (1st Dep't)
Memorandum of the Attorney General of the State of New York as Amicus Curiae in Support of Motion for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeals. - January 26, 2005, Sperry v. Crompton Corp., [No. 2004-06517 (2nd Dep't)
Brief for Amicus Curiae State of New York In Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal of the Order Below. - December 30, 2004, Paltre v. General Motors Corp., [Nos. 2004-04642, 04677(2nd Dep't)]
Brief for Amicus Curiae State of New York In Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal of the Order Below. - July 25, 2003, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, [No. 02-682 (U.S.)]
Brief for the States as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, 124 Sup. Ct. 872 (2004) (prepared by New York State and addresses monopolization claims and the Telecommunications Act of 1996) - May 31, 2002, Cox v. Microsoft (NY Ct. App.)
Notice of Motion, Affidavit, Exhibits and Brief of the Attorney General of the State of New York in Support of Motion for Amicus Curiae Relief. - April 24, 2001, Asher v. Abbott [No. 123431/99 (NY Ct. App.)]
Brief for Amicus Curiae State of New York In Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal of the Order Below.