UNITED STATES

v.

PULLMAN COMPANY ET AL.; OTIS & CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; AND GLORE, FORGAN & CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• The Kan. City Star Co. v. United States, 240 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1957)
  …to illustrate or establish his intent or motive in the particular act directly in judgment”. Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 358, 10 L.Ed. 987. In United States v. Pullman Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1943, 50 F.Supp. 123 at page 126, affirmed 330 U.S. 806, 67 S.Ct. 1078, 91 L.Ed. 1263, an anti-trust case, the court, in commenting on evidence prior to the indictment period, stated: “We think they are competent evidence to show defendants’ state of mind at the time. The time, of course, was a good while ago, long be…
• The Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 732 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1984)
  …aff’d per curiam, 347 U.S. 521, 74 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954) (75%); United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948) (70%); United States v. Pullman Co., 50 F.Supp. 123 (E.D.Pa.1943) aff'd per curiam, 330 U.S. 806, 67 S.Ct. 1078, 91 L.Ed. 1263 (1947) (100%). Illustrative cases from this court include Associated Radio Serv. Co. v. Page Airways, Inc., 624 F. 2d 1342, 1352 & n. 18 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1030, 101 S.Ct. 1740, 68 L.Ed.2d 226 (1982…
• Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., 402 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1968)
  …ted States v. Swift & Company, 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932), divisions of territories, control of market journals and stockyard facilities; United States v. Pullman Co., 50 F.Supp. 123 (E.D.Pa.1943), aff’d per curiam 330 U.S. 806, 67 S.Ct. 1078, 91 L.Ed. 1263, exclusive dealing, refusal of service except in Pullman-owned cars, control of manufacture of sleeping cars, long-term contracts. These and many other cases dealing with conspiracies, monopolistic control of the market, tie-in sales…

  ← 1 / 2 →