Full file at https://testbankuniv.eu/Business-Law-Today-Comprehensive-11th-Edition-Miller-Solutions-Manual
C.A.9 (Cal.),2014. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories 740 F.3d 471, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 563, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 717 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, dba GlaxoSmithKline, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant–Appellant. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, dba GlaxoSmithKline, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant–Appellee. Nos. 11–17357, 11–17373. Argued and Submitted Sept. 18, 2013. Filed Jan. 21, 2014. Background: Licensee brought action alleging that manufacturer of drug to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) had violated implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, antitrust laws, and North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, granted judgment for licensee after jury verdict in its favor in part. Licensee appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) manufacturer struck juror on basis of his sexual orientation; (2) heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation; (3) equal protection forbids striking juror on basis of sexual orientation; and (4) Batson violation was not subject to harmless error review. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Jury 230
33(5.15)
230 Jury 230II Right to Trial by Jury 230k30 Denial or Infringement of Right 230k33 Constitution and Selection of Jury 230k33(5) Challenges and Objections 230k33(5.15) k. Peremptory challenges. Most Cited Cases Batson analysis requires the party challenging the peremptory strike to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, the striking party then must give a nondiscriminatory reason for the strike, and, finally, the court
Full file at https://testbankuniv.eu/Business-Law-Today-Comprehensive-11th-Edition-Miller-Solutions-Manual