INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• McGOWAN v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1961)
  …ete and inapplicable in the District of Columbia, largely on the ground that its purpose was religious. Compare O’Hanlon v. Myers, 10 Rich. L. 128 (S. C. 1856). In Brunswick-Balke-Collander Co. v. Evans, 228 F. 991 (D. C. D. Ore. 1916), app. dism’d, 248 U. S. 587, a Federal District Court sustained Oregon’s general closing law against contentions that it violated religious freedom. Cf. Swann v. Swann, 21 F. 299 (C. C. E. D. Ark. 1884); In re King, 46 F. 905 (C. C. W. D. Tenn. 1891). Appeals in cases challen…
• Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1962)
  …nted. E. g., Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311; United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106; Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U. S. 556; Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 335 U. S. 303. Cf. International Harvester Co. v. United States, 248 U. S. 587; 274 U. S. 693. Cf. Jerrold Electronics Corp. v. United States, 365 U. S. 567, affirming 187 F. Supp. 545, 563-567 (D. C. E. D. Pa.). Material in italics was added by the amendments; material in brackets was deleted. “No corporation engaged in com…
• Standard Oil Co. (indiana) v. United States, 283 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1931)
  …nted product which is sold in interstate commerce; and agreements concerning such processes are likely to engender the evils to which the Sherman Act was directed. Compare United States v. International Harvester Co., 214 Fed. 987, appeal dismissed, 248 U. S. 587. We must, therefore, examine the evidence to ascertain the operation and effect of the challenged contracts. Fifth. No monopoly, or restriction of competition, in the business of licensing patented cracking processes resulted from the execution of…