455 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 1438, 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982), where we set aside a jury verdict because the plaintiff “introduce[d] [no] evidence whatsoever” that an AT & T affiliate provided poor service to the plaintiff’s customers after the purchase and installation of the plaintiffs terminal equipment. But Litton’s claim is that shortages, missed cutover dates, etc., prevented it both from satisfying existing customers and luring prospective customers because it could' not “cutover” on schedule. Unlike Northeastern, there is evidence in this case to support Litton’s claim that the problems associated with delay were real. 44 . See Northeastern Telephone Co., 651 F.2d at 95 n. 28, citing California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). 45 . AT & T cites to our decision in City of
holding that a lawyer who informs the jury that it is his view of the evidence that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the only factual issues that are in dispute has utterly failed to subject the prosecutions case to meaningful adversarial testing holding to the same effect holding that no synergistic effect arises from individual allegedly anticompetitive practices where proof in numerous critical aspects is utterly lacking holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that privity is lacking where plaintiffs were not signatories to the contractual documents