Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 18 omission of section 23 24 and 25 Sorted by: old Page 10 of about 184,095 results (0.853 seconds)

Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Nebraska

Court : US Supreme Court

..... company, unless checked, will have power to establish a monopoly is not to be met merely by building another elevator -- the physical limits of that kind of competition are too easily reached. but if we assume that circumstances might make it reasonable to compel a railroad to deliver and receive page 217 u. s. 207 grain ..... statement. in both cases, the railroad company set up that the statute was an attempt to regulate commerce among the states, and also was void under the fourteenth amendment. after trials, the fine was imposed and the peremptory writ of mandamus was ordered, and both judgments were affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 81 neb ..... or handling and shipping grain, without favoritism or discrimination in any respect whatever. provided, however, that any elevator hereafter constructed, in order to receive the benefits of this act, must have a capacity page 217 u. s. 205 of not less than 15,000 bushels." then follows a section making railroads liable for damages in case of .....

Grenada Lumber Co. Vs. Mississippi

Court : US Supreme Court

..... effect our 'declaration of purpose.'" " article three" " limitation and restriction" "sec. 1. no rules, regulations, or bylaws shall be adopted in any manner stifling competition, limiting production, restraining trade, regulating prices, or pooling profits." "sec. 2. no coercive measures of any kind shall be practiced or adopted toward any retailer, either to ..... entered into an agreement, compact, or combination for the purpose and with the intent to destroy, prevent, or suppress page 217 u. s. 436 all competition between themselves, as retail dealers in the materials mentioned, and manufacturers, wholesale dealers, brokers or commission men, keeping no stock, from selling the like articles ..... 434 as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. an act harmless when done by one may become a public wrong when done by many acting in concert, and when it becomes the object of a conspiracy and operates in restraint of trade, the .....

Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky Vs. Tennessee

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of a corporation from that of an individual without violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and so held as to the provisions in the antitrust statute of tennessee of 1903 prohibiting arrangements for lessening competition under which corporations are proceeded against by bill in equity for ouster, while individuals are proceeded against ..... strangers to the business. it does not regulate the business at all. it is not even directed against interference with that business specifically, but against acts of a certain kind that the state disapproves in whatever connection. the mere fact that it may happen to remove an interference with commerce among the states ..... that the statute, as construed by the court, is contrary to the fourteenth amendment, and also is an unconstitutional interference with commerce among the states. page 217 u. s. 420 the basis of the former contention is that, by 3 of the act, any violation of it is made a crime, punishable by fine, imprisonment .....

Brown-forman Co. Vs. Kentucky

Court : US Supreme Court

..... kentucky, but the reverse, in that the resident rectifier is discriminated against because the product of the untaxed nonresident rectifier meets those of the taxed rectifier in competition for the trade of kentucky. but counsel say that discrimination against residents or products of the state is as much a denial of the equal protection of ..... in kentucky unrectified and unblended spirits, and (3) rectifiers and blenders of other states or countries who vend in kentucky untaxed rectified or blended spirits, in direct competition with the spirits of kentucky rectifiers or blenders, subject to the tax." it has been urged that the tax is not imposed as a license upon the ..... to this: has the state denied to the plaintiff in error the equal protection of the law, guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, by the imposition of the tax provided under the first section of the act? it is urged that that section falls under the condemnation of the provision of the federal constitution because, to quote .....

icc Vs. Chicago, R.i. and Pacific Ry. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... therefore the order exceeds the power of the commission, and deprives the companies of their property without due process of law, in violation of the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states. it is further alleged that there was no evidence that the rates between the rivers are unjust or unreasonable except ..... that the rates charged are unduly high or excessive, or discriminate against the missouri river cities or the petitioners. the chicago & northwestern railway company filed an amended answer in which it alleged that the complaint related to the through rates from the atlantic seaboard to the missouri river cities, and that they were alleged ..... its duty under the act to secure a relatively equal share of the volume of interstate commerce to communities and places, and therefore that it was its province to alter otherwise legal rates for the page 218 u. s. 112 purpose of correcting the inequalities which otherwise would arise from the competitive rivalry between sections and .....

Satis Chandra Giri Mohant Vs. Gopal Chandra Rai

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.627

..... , who cannot obtain any decree for recovery of possession under that section ; in fact the plaintiff in a suit under section 106 does not gain any advantage except an amendment of the entries in the record in so far as such entries have been prejudicial to his interest. we must hold, therefore, that a suit under section 103 is ..... has contended that the suit is essentially one for a declaratory decree, and that although the plaintiff asks for amendment of the record-of-rights, that prayer is superfluous, inasmuch as under section 107 sub-section (2) of the bengal tenancy act, it is the duty of the revenue officer to make a note in the record of the decision ..... suit is instituted has to hear and decide the dispute. the courts below have concurrently held that a suit of the description instituted under section 108 of the bengal tenancy act is in its essence a suit for a declaratory decree, in which no consequential relief is asked, and that consequently under article 17 clause (3) of the second .....

Kali Kamal Maitra Vs. Fazlur Rahman Khan Chowdhry

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.778

..... -manifested intention of the litigant parties. if the plaintiffs desired to increase the valuation of their suit, the obvious course for them to adopt was to ask for leave to amend the plaint. this they did not do. it has been suggested, however, that they might have waited till the decree was made in their favour, because section 11 of ..... the court fees act lays down a procedure in suits for account and mesne-profits for payment of additional court-fees. in our opinion, the section upon which reliance has been placed, has no ..... taken as the value of the suit for the purpose of the jurisdiction of the court. let us now turn for a moment to section 7 of the court fees act. that section provides that in suits for money, (including suits for damages and other compensation, that is, including suits of the description now before us), the amount of fee .....

Griffith Vs. Connecticut

Court : US Supreme Court

..... by the plaintiff in error that the statute in question is an arbitrary, unjust, and unreasonable selection, favoring a class; is detrimental to the public, stifles competition, and that no good reason exists for the granting of the privilege of loaning money at any rate of interest without taking a mortgage on real or personal ..... and a reasonable selection which is not merely arbitrary and without real difference does not deny equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. the statute of connecticut of 1907, limiting interest on loans is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws because it excepts loans made by ..... the further exception in favor of loans by trust companies chartered by this state was fully justified by the peculiar character of these institutions, each created by a special act of legislation, and subject to the inspection of the bank commissioners. gen.stat. 1902, ch. 199, 202. there was also reasonable cause for the exception .....

House Vs. Mayes

Court : US Supreme Court

..... full, as follows: "without admission of either party as to the relevancy of any particular fact herein set forth, the following facts are agreed between the parties: there are competitive grain markets at galveston, texas; chicago, illinois; omaha, nebraska; atchison and wichita, kansas, and st. louis, st. joseph, and kansas city, missouri. that kansas ..... associations of their liberty of contract or of their property without due process of law. the state may, without violating the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, regulate the conduct of boards of trade or exchange which have close and constant relations with the general public, by such means as are not arbitrary or ..... and fraudulent practices occur or would most probably occur in the sale of grain and the other commodities named. that court said: "the provision of the act which petitioner is charged page 219 u. s. 283 with having violated is that part thereof which prohibits any purchaser of grain from deducting any amount from .....

German Alliance Ins. Co. Vs. Hale

Court : US Supreme Court

..... the state to adopt such regulations as will protect the public against the evils arising from combinations of those engaged in such business, and to substitute competition for monopoly, and regulations which have a real substantial relation to that end and are not essentially arbitrary do not deprive the insurance companies of their ..... a liability to be recovered by the insured of twenty-five percent in excess of the amount of the policy are not unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment as depriving such companies of their property without due process of law or denying them the equal protection of the laws. the facts, which involve ..... with other companies. all insurance companies, persons, or corporations engaged in the business of insurance, as agent or otherwise, with associations, persons, or corporations which acted together in fixing rates, are placed by the statute upon an equality in every respect, and therefore it cannot rightfully be contended that the plaintiff in error .....