# Elliot Fineman the Industry Network System, Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · November 24, 1992 · 980 F.2d 171

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483624

## Case

- **Full name:** Elliot FINEMAN; The Industry Network System, Inc., Appellants, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** November 24, 1992
- **Citations:** 980 F.2d 171
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Stapleton, Mansmann, Fullam, Sloviter, Becker, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 349 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483624

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a new trial was necessary in light of trial counsel’s inflammatory remarks during summation, including improperly referring to his own truthfulness, improperly commenting on what he perceived to be the justness of his case, inserting “facts” not in evidence abo…
- finding as a matter of law that “absent other relevant factors, 55 percent market share will not prove the existence of monopoly power” and noting “90% is enough, 60% is not likely to suffice, and 33% is insufficient”
- holding that a conspiracy in violation of sec tion 1 does not require the sharing of an identical anticompetitive motive, but requires only a shared commitment to a common scheme that has an anticompetitive objective
- holding a new trial was warranted because plaintiff's counsel “improperly testified to his own truthfulness and trustworthiness, supplied ‘facts’ not in evidence about the credibility of [defendant’s] witnesses, accused [defendant]’s witnesses of being ‘liars’ and ‘perjurers,’…

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Nov. 24, 1992.
Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and FULLAM, District Judge * .
The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judges Becker and Scirica would have granted rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483624. Public record. Not legal advice.