Court : US Supreme Court
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan - 293 U.S. 388 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan Nos. 135 and 260 Argued December 10, 11, 1934 Decided January 7, 1935 293 U.S. 388 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Upon review of a decree affirming the validity of an executive regulation, and refusing to enjoin its enforcement, rendered in a suit begun and ended below after the regulation had been withdrawn, the question of validity does not cease to be moot because the regulation has since been reinstated and the Government has declared its intention to enforce it from the time of reinstatement. P. 293 U. S. 412 . 2. A suit to enjoin the enforcement of executive regulations is not made moot by amendments of the regulations, adopted pending the litigation, which continue in force the requirements complained of and present the same constitutional question as before. P. 293 U. S. 41...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PANAMA REFINING CO. v. RYAN - 292 U.S. 388 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court PANAMA REFINING CO. v. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) 293 U.S. 388 PANAMA REFINING CO. et al. v. RYAN et al. AMAZON PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al. v. SAME. Nos. 135, 260. Argued Dec. 10, 11, 1934. Decided Jan. 7, 1935. Page 293 U.S. 388, 391 Messrs. J. N. Saye, of Longview, Tex., and F. W. Fischer, of Tyler, Tex., for petitioners. Page 293 U.S. 388, 398 Mr. Harold M. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents. Page 293 U.S. 388, 405 Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 11, 1933, the President, by Executive Order No. 6199 (15 USCA 709 note), prohibited 'the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly Page ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot - 323 U.S. 490 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490 (1945) Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot No. 49 Argued November 8, 9, 1944 Decided January 8, 1945 323 U.S. 490 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The legislative history of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is inconclusive as to whether the Act was intended to reach such child labor as is here involved. P. 323 U. S. 500 . 2. Section 12(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which provides that "no producer . . . shall ship or deliver for shipment in commerce any goods produced in an establishment . . . in or about which . . . any oppressive child labor has been employed . . . " held inapplicable to a company engaged in the transmission in interstate commerce of telegraph messages. P. 323 U. S. 501 et seq. (a) Transmission of telegraph messages is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. - 353 U.S. 586 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (1957) United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. No. 3 Argued November 14-15, 1956 Decided June 3, 1957 353 U.S. 586 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus This is a civil action brought by the Government in 1949 under 15 of the Clayton Act to enjoin violations of 7 of that Act resulting from the purchase by du Pont in 1917-1919 of a 23% stock interest in General Motors. The essence of the charge was that, by means of the close relationship of the two companies, du Pont had obtained an illegal preference over competitors in the sale of automotive finishes and fabrics to General Motors, thus tending to "create a monopoly" in a "line of commerce." After trial, the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Government had failed to prove its case, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wise - 370 U.S. 405 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405 (1962) United States v. Wise No. 488 Argued April 16, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 370 U.S. 405 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus A grand jury indicted appellee and a corporation of which he was an officer for engaging in a combination and conspiracy to eliminate price competition in the sale of milk in the Kansas City area, in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act. In a bill of particulars, the Government charged that appellee had been acting "solely in his capacity as an officer, director, or agent who authorized, ordered, or did" some of the acts constituting a violation. The District Court dismissed the indictment as to appellee, on the ground that 1 of the Sherman Act does not apply to corporate officers acting in a representative capacity. Held: a corporate officer is subject to prosecution under 1 of the Sherman Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. American Tobacco Co. - 221 U.S. 106 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911) United States v. American Tobacco Company Nos. 118, 119 Argued January 3, 4, 5, 6, 1910 R; restored to docket for reargument April 11, 1910 Reargued January 9, 10, 11, 12, 1911 Decided My 29, 1911 221 U.S. 106 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Standard Oil Co. v. United States, ante, p. 221 U. S. 1 , followed and reaffirmed as to the construction to be given to the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, and held that the combination in this case is one in restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize the business of tobacco in interstate commerce within the prohibitions of the act. Page 221 U. S. 107 In order to meet such a situation as is presented by the record in this case and to afford the relief for the evils to be overcome, the Antitrust Act o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc. - 405 U.S. 596 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) United States v. Topco Associates, Inc. No. 70-82 Argued November 16, 1971 Decided March 29, 1972 405 U.S. 596 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The United States brought this injunction action charging a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act by appellee, Topco, a cooperative association of about 25 small and medium-sized independent regional supermarket chains operating in 33 States. As its members' purchasing agent, appellee procures more than 1,000 different items, most of which have brand names owned by Topco. The members' combined retail sales in 1967 were 2.3 billion, exceeded by only three national grocery chains. A member's average market share in its area is about 6%, and its competitive position is frequently as strong as that of any other chain. The members own equal amounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. NASD, Inc. - 422 U.S. 694 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. NASD, Inc., 422 U.S. 694 (1975) United States v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. No. 73-1701 Argued March 17, 1975 Decided June 26, 1975 422 U.S. 694 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides that "no dealer shall sell [mutual fund shares] to any person except a dealer, a principal underwriter, or the issuer, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus." Section 22(f) authorizes mutual funds to impose restrictions on the negotiability and transferability of shares, provided they conform with the fund's registration statement and do not contravene any rules and regulations that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may prescribe in the interests of the holders of all of the outstanding securities. Section 2(a)(6) defines a "broker" as a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Goldberg v. United States - 425 U.S. 94 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 (1976) Goldberg v. United States No. 74-6293 Argued January 14, 1976 Decided March 30, 1976 425 U.S. 94 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus During the course of petitioner's criminal trial, the chief prosecution witness (Newman) indicated on cross-examination that, on certain dates, he was interviewed by Government lawyers who took notes relating to Newman's forthcoming trial testimony, and that Newman verified the accuracy of the notes. Petitioner thereupon moved for production of the notes pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, which provides that, in a federal criminal prosecution after a witness called by the Government has testified on direct examination, the court, on the defendant's motion, shall order the Government to produce any "statement" in its possession that relates to the subject matter of the witness' tes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. - 430 U.S. 1 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1 (1977) Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. No. 75-353 Argued October 6, 1976 Decided February 23, 1977 * 430 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Chris-Craft Industries was the unsuccessful tender offeror in a contest for the control of a corporation. During the course of the takeover contest, Chris-Craft brought suit for damages and injunctive relief against the management of the target corporation, its investment adviser, and Bangor Punta Corp., the successful competitor, alleging, inter alia, violations of 14(e) and other provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-6 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Section 14(e) makes unlawful "any fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts or practices, in connection with any tender offer . . . or any solicitatio...
Tag this Judgment!