Citation network
United States Vs. Wise
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1962
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 405 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. WiseSearch
-
U.S. 405 (1962) United States v. WiseSearch
-
years, and although corporate officers have been indicted under that Act for almost as long, see, e.g., United States v. GreenhutSearch
-
United States v. PattersonSearch
-
to indicate that the Congress intended to restrict the meaning as applied to corporate officers. See Trailmobile Co. v. WhirlsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
responsibility for the acts of the officers was not well established in 1890. See New York Central & H. R.R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
corporate defendants contended that only natural persons were included. United States v. AmedySearch
-
Wheat. 392. The same issue raised in other cases was not always resolved by a unanimous Court. Beaston v. Farmers'Search
-
Bank of Delaware, 12 Pet. 102. Cf. United States v. ShireySearch
-
then recent. Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 , 99 U. S. 718 -719, and Canada Southern R. Co. v. GebhardSearch
-
See Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. NewSearch
-
whether a corporate officer is within the term. This Court was faced with the same problem in United States v. DotterweichSearch
-
meaning to apply to all officers who have a responsible share in the proscribed transaction. Cf. Carolene Products Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Sherman Act in the interim before the passage of the Clayton Act. The most significant case is United States v. MacAndrewsSearch
-
In United States v. WinslowSearch
-
Congressmen who are promoting legislation and who are unsuccessful has no persuasive significance here. United States v. PriceSearch
-
Fogarty v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
Federal Trade Comm'n v. MortonSearch
-
Corn Products Refining Co. v. FederalSearch
-
the 1890 Act is not of weight for the purpose of construing the Sherman Act. Federal Housing Administration v. DarlingtonSearch
-
Rainwater v. UnitedSearch
-
Cranch 272, 6 U. S. 277 . See United States v. StafoffSearch
-
Levindale Lead & Zinc Mining Co. v. ColemanSearch
-
Cranch 1. But see Sioux Tribe v. UnitedSearch
-
Stockdale v. InsuranceSearch
-
officers under the Sherman Act, not the Clayton Act, and many convictions were obtained. See, e.g., United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
United States v. TrentonSearch
-
American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the matter as being significant, which we do not. The Government, on the other hand, relies upon United States v. AtlanticSearch
-
United States v. GeneralSearch
-
and United States v. NationalSearch
-
Rex v. MedleySearch
-
State v. GreatSearch
-
crimes even after the corporation's immunity was worn away, Regina v. GreatSearch
-
State v. MorrisSearch
-
State v. PattonSearch
-
States v. MillsSearch
-
United States v. MilkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial