Opinion ID: 366541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: precepts of law

Text: 5 With commendable vigor, Gillen's present counsel contends that The district court erred in holding that intent is not an element of a criminal price-fixing conspiracy charge. The validity of appellant's argument depends on whether the United States Supreme Court in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) changed the law of more than four decades on proof of intent in a price-fixing conspiracy case. Gypsum was decided a week after the trial judge filed his Memorandum of Decision containing findings of fact and verdict of guilty. 6 We must nevertheless consider Gypsum because we must apply the law in effect as of the time we render this decision. Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond,416 U.S. 696, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). 6 In determining the applicability of Gypsum to the instant case we have within the hierarchy of legal precepts a situation where the rule of law is clear and the sole question is application to the facts at bar. Aldisert, Writing Judicial Opinions, III-2 (1979) (unpublished manuscript); See also Aldisert, The Judicial Process, 59-71 (1976).