Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Reading Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 26, 1920

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

27 entries 2 linked 25 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Reading US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
  2. international Harvester Co. Vs. Missouri US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1914
  3. Co. - 253 U.S. 26 (1920) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Reading
    Search
  4. Co., 253 U.S. 26 (1920) United States v. Reading
    Search
  5. and coal companies for suppressing competition, which were declared violations of the Anti-Trust Act in United States v. Reading
    Search
  6. intent and purpose Page 253 U. S. 44 with which the combinations here assailed were formed. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  7. This constituted a combination to unduly restrain interstate commerce within the meaning of the act. United States v. Union
    Search
  8. thus served to pool the property, the activities, and the profits of the three companies. Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  9. that company, although only one of six, became responsible for 30 percent of the required financing. In United States v. Reading
    Search
  10. Anti-Trust Act has been frequently held by this Court. Page 253 U. S. 58 Thus, in Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  11. And again, in United States v. Union
    Search
  12. conclusion of this Court in 1914, when discussing a similar state Anti-Trust Act in International Harvester Co. v. Missouri
    Search
  13. perfectly established law. It is ruled by many decisions of this Court, but specifically and clearly by United States v. Union
    Search
  14. as a legal doctrine, concluded, upon the authority of United States v. Delaware
    Search
  15. of the latter as to bring it within the prohibition of the act. But this holding was considered in United States v. Lehigh
    Search
  16. treating it as a mere agency or department of the owning company. This rule was repeated and applied in United States v. Delaware
    Search
  17. if the corporate agency did not exist, and will deal with them as the justice of the case may require. United States v. Lehigh
    Search
  18. United States v. Delaware
    Search
  19. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Minneapolis
    Search
  20. United States v. Lehigh
    Search
  21. which it took and also demonstrates the error involved in the decree of this Court reversing its action. United States v. Reading
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Reading
    Search
  23. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  24. United States v. Union
    Search
  25. Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  26. In United States v. Reading
    Search
  27. of United States v. Delaware
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial