AKINS

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1946)
  …considered here on petitions for certiorari. On March 26, 1945, this Court granted the petitions but each was “limited to the question whether actual exclusion of competitors is necessary to the crime of monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act.” 324 U. S. 836. On April 19, 1945, Reynolds, et al., filed a petition for rehearing and enlargement of the scope of review in their case but it was denied. 324 U. S. 891. This opinion is limited to the convictions under § 2 of the Sherman Act2 and deals especially…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1968)
  …and of attempt and conspiracy to monopolize as well as of monopolization itself, the grant of cer-tiorari was “limited to the question whether actual exclusion of competitors is necessary to the crime of monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act.” 324 U. S. 836 (1945). After noting that “§§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act require proof of conspiracies which are reciprocally distinguishable from and independent of each other . . . ,” 328 U. S., at 788, the Court determined that the jury could have found that t…
• Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1945)
  …stitution of the United States.1 [*400] Certiorari was allowed because of the importance in the administration of criminal justice of the alleged racial discrimination which was relied upon to support the claim of violation of constitutional rights. 324 U. S. 836. This discrimination was said to consist of an arbitrary and purposeful limitation by the Grand Jury Commissioners of the number of Negroes to one who was to be placed upon the grand jury panel of sixteen for the term of court at which the indictmen…