SEATTLE ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL.

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1961)
  …No. 1128, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). See, e. g., United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 189 (1944); United States v. Corn Products Refining Co., 234 F. 964, 1018 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1916), appeal dismissed on motion of appellant, 249 U. S. 621 (1919); United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 188 F. 127, 153 (C. C. D. Del. 1911), modified, 273 F. 869 (D. C. D. Del. 1921); In re Crown Zellerbach Corp., CCH Trade Reg. Rep. 1957-1958 ¶ 26,923, at p. 36,462 (F. T. C. 1958). We reject…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• George R. Whitten, JR., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974)
  …46); Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 396, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518 (1905). An intent to monopolize may be shown by direct evidence. Cf. United States v. Corn [*555] Products Ref. Co., 234 F. 964, 978 (S.D.N.Y.1916), appeal dismissed, 249 U.S. 621, 39 S.Ct. 291, 63 L.Ed. 805 (1919). The direct evidence of intent mustered by Whitten at most shows that Paddock intended to eliminate Whitten from the market, which would raise Paddock’s share from 2.7 per cent to 3 per cent. Intent may also be i…
• Dimmitt Agri Indus., Inc. v. CPC Int'l Inc., 679 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …and monopolizing in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.1 Then District Judge Learned Hand, in an opinion long familiar to students of antitrust law, United States v. Com Products Refining Co., 234 F. 964 (S.D.N.Y.1916), appeal dism’d, 249 U.S. 621, 39 S.Ct. 291, 63 L.Ed. 805 (1919) (hereinafter cited as Com Products), found the defendant guilty of the various antitrust offenses alleged. Specifically, the court found that the defendant had combined into an organization that conspired to monopo…