Citation network
United States Vs. Griffith
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 1948
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
-
U.S. 100 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. GriffithSearch
-
U.S. 100 (1948) United States v. GriffithSearch
-
the result of an unlawful conspiracy, but solely the consequence of lawful competitive practices. In United States v. CrescentSearch
-
of trade or monopoly results as the consequence of a defendant's conduct or business arrangements. United States v. PattenSearch
-
United States v. MasoniteSearch
-
U. S. 265 , 316 U. S. 275 . To require a greater showing would cripple the Act. As stated in United States v. AluminumSearch
-
condemned by the Act. The classical statement is that of Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
intent to bring it to pass is necessary in order to produce a dangerous probability that it will happen. Commonwealth v. PeasleeSearch
-
United States v. AluminumSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Act is aimed, inter alia, at the acquisition or retention of effective market control. See United States v. AluminumSearch
-
provided it is coupled with the purpose or intent to exercise that power. American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
International Salt Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The antitrust laws are as much violated by the prevention of competition as by its destruction. United States v. AluminumSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
He need Page 334 U. S. 108 not be as crass as the exhibitors in United States v. CrescentSearch
-
with that purpose, since the end result is the necessary and direct consequence of what he did. United States v. PattenSearch
-
be used to monopolize or to attempt to monopolize interstate trade or commerce. Nor, as we hold in United States v. ParamountSearch
-
and 2 of the Act. It is plain from the course of business that the commerce affected was interstate. United States v. CrescentSearch
-
the wrongs that were done and prevent their recurrence in the future. See United Page 334 U. S. 110 States v. CrescentSearch
-
Schine Chain Theaters v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. ParamountSearch
-
even though monopoly power was never acquired. American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
It was said in United States v. UnitedSearch
-
course, an earmark of monopoly power. Moreover, as stated by Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court in United States v. SwiftSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. GriffithSearch
-
In United States v. CrescentSearch
-
United States v. AluminumSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Commonwealth v. PeasleeSearch
-
See United States v. AluminumSearch
-
American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CrescentSearch
-
States v. CrescentSearch
-
United States v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SwiftSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial