Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Swift and Co. Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 19, 1928

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

71 entries 9 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. White Vs. Joyce US Supreme Court · May 06, 1895
  2. Little Vs. Bowers US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1890
  3. Mccormick Vs. Sullivant US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1825
  4. Dowell Vs. Applegate US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1894
  5. Cutler Vs. Huston US Supreme Court · May 27, 1895
  6. New Orleans Vs. Fisher US Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1901
  7. Cooper Vs. Reynolds US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  8. Webb Vs. Webb US Supreme Court · May 18, 1981
  9. Vicksburg Waterworks Co. Vs. Vicksburg US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1902
  10. Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  11. States - 276 U.S. 311 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  12. States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928) Swift & Company v. United
    Search
  13. Court of the District of Columbia has power to administer relief under the Anti-Trust Act ( Federal Trade Comm'n v. Klesner
    Search
  14. and that of the California Cooperative Canneries, allowed September 13, 1924. See California Co-op. Canneries v. United
    Search
  15. Gas Co. v. Dittman
    Search
  16. the Act of February 13, 1925, the appeals should have been transferred to this Court. Compare Pascagoula National Bank v. Federal
    Search
  17. Salinger v. United
    Search
  18. Rossi v. United
    Search
  19. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  20. jurisdiction of the whole case had it come before us on writ of error or appeal. Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Lyndon
    Search
  21. Waggoner Estate v. Wichita
    Search
  22. could not be set aside by appeal or bill of Page 276 U. S. 324 review except in case of clerical error. Webb v. Webb
    Search
  23. Bradish v. Gee
    Search
  24. appeal or bill of review where there was a claim of lack of actual consent to the decree as entered ( Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum
    Search
  25. U. S. 128 , 158 U. S. 147 ), or of fraud in its procurement ( Thompson v. Maxwell
    Search
  26. or that there was lack of federal jurisdiction because of the citizenship of the parties ( Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum
    Search
  27. supra ). Compare Fraenkl v. Cerecedo
    Search
  28. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  29. States, 113 U. S. 261 , 113 U. S. 266 . Compare United States v. Babbitt
    Search
  30. the Anti-Trust Act. After entry of the case in this Court, that contention was disposed of by Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner
    Search
  31. South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. Page 276 U. S. 326 v. Amador
    Search
  32. California v. San
    Search
  33. that an injunction may issue to prevent future wrong although no right has yet been violated. Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg
    Search
  34. Pierce v. Society
    Search
  35. the error is one which could have been corrected only by an appeal or by a bill of review. Compare Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum
    Search
  36. Kennedy v. Georgia
    Search
  37. Des Moines Navigation Co. v. Iowa
    Search
  38. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McCabe
    Search
  39. of the bill not specifically denied may have afforded ample basis for a decree limited to future acts. Deputron v. Young
    Search
  40. of a character ordinarily remediable on appeal. Such an error is waived by the consent to the decree. United States v. Babbitt
    Search
  41. U. S. 295 . Clearly it does not go to the power of the court to adjudicate between the parties. Voorhees v. Bank
    Search
  42. Christianson v. King
    Search
  43. alone, might be open on appeal to the objection that they are too general to be sanctioned. Compare Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  44. They are to be read in connection with other paragraphs of the decree and with the allegations of the bill. Barnes v. Chicago
    Search
  45. City of Vicksburg v. Henson
    Search
  46. involves usurpation by the judicial branch of the government of the function of Congress. Compare United States v. New
    Search
  47. do this is not merely unauthorized by, but is contrary to, the common law and the Anti-Trust Act. Compare Nordenfelt v. Maxim
    Search
  48. United States v. Addyston
    Search
  49. that there was no finding of an interweaving of intrastate and interstate transactions, as in United States v. New
    Search
  50. U. S. 464 , or that the intrastate transactions had any relation to interstate operations, as in Swift & Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial