CALLEY

v.

CALLAWAY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Universal Brands, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 546 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …enn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1710, 12 L.Ed.2d 775 (1964); United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 12 L.Ed.2d 12 (1964); United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 367 F.Supp. 1226 (C.D.Cal. 1973), aff’d, 418 U.S. 906, 94 S.Ct. 3199, 41 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1974). I am not suggesting, of course, that Universal would be able to prove a sufficient section 7 violation to prevail on the merits. But this case is in a summary judgment posture, and allegations and statistics…
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984)
  …Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 280 U.S. 291, 302, 50 S.Ct. 89, 93, 74 L.Ed. 431 (1930); Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 346, 82 S.Ct. at 1535. We reject the argument. In United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 367 F.Supp. 1226 (C.D.Cal.1973), aff'd mem., 418 U.S. 906, 94 S.Ct. 3199, 41 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1974), the court rejected a similar argument that an acquisition would not violate section 7 where the acquired company intended to go out of business. It said: Section 7 is concerned only with the effect upon compe…
• United States v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF LOS Angeles & Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc., 575 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …uity jurisdiction authorize relief against such parties if necessary to eliminate the effects of an acquisition offensive to the statute. See, e. g., United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 367 F.Supp. 1226, 1261-62 (C.D. Cal.1973), aff’d mem., 418 U.S. 906, 94 S.Ct. 3199, 41 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1974); United States v. Pabst Brewing Company, 183 F.Supp. 220,221 (E.D.Wis.1960);' United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 F.Supp. 1, 10-12 (N.D.Ill.1959), reversed on other grounds, 366 U.S. 316, 81 S.…