KEYSTONE DRILLER CO.

v.

GENERAL EXCAVATOR CO.; AND SAME V. OSGOOD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1957)
  …red on a competitive basis.” 126 F. Supp., at 242, 243. Whether any stock purchase is an investment turns largely on the intent of the purchaser. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 66 F. 2d 37, aff’d by an equally divided court, 291 U. S. 651. In this case, since the District Court’s finding with reference to that intent is unequivocal and not clearly erroneous, the stock acquisition falls within the proviso, stated in the third paragraph of § 7, expressly excepting acquisitions made “so…
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 476 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …... to bring about . . . the substantial lessening of competition.” Section 7, jf 3. In arguing for a broad definition of “investment”, G&W relies on Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. ICC, 66 F. 2d 37 (3 Cir. 1933), aff’d per curiam by equally divided Court, 291 U.S. 651 (1934). In our view, however, that case says no more than that the court’s attention should be focused less on whether the purchase constitutes an “investment” than on whether the effect (indeed at this juncture the reasonably likely effect) is subs…
• Columbus GAS & Fuel Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Ohio, 292 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1934)
  …the whole matter, the court arrived at the conclusion that the ordinance rate was valid, and remanded the proceeding. 127 Ohio St. 109; 187 N.E. 7. There was an appeal to this court, which was dismissed upon the ground that the order was not final. 291 U.S. 651. Thereupon the Supreme Court of Ohio amended its decree by striking out the remand, and substituting a direction that the rate be established in accordance with the ordinance. Upon an appeal from the decree as thus amended the cause is here again.…