UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a District Court judgment finding that major gypsum companies had conspired to fix and maintain prices of gypsum board in the eastern United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court enjoined the defendant companies from enforcing price-fixing provisions in their license agreements and from entering into any agreements that restrained trade in gypsum board.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In this case probable jurisdiction is noted. The motions to supplement the record are granted. Article III of the decree of the District Court of November 7, 1949, reading as follows: “The defendant companies have acted in concert in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states in the eastern territory of the United States to fix, maintain and control the prices of gypsum board and have monopolized trade and commerce in the gypsum board industry in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,” is affirmed. The corporate defendants and Samuel M. Gloyd, doing business as Texas Cement Plaster Company, are enjoined, pending further order of this Court, from (1) enforcing in any manner whatsoever the provisions of their current license agreements fixing, maintaining, or stabilizing prices of gypsum board or the terms and conditions of sale thereof, and (2) from entering into or performing any agreement or understanding in restraint of trade and commerce in gypsum board among the several states in the eastern territory of the United States by license agreements to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of gypsum board or by license or other concerted action arranging the terms and conditions of sale thereof.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these questions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1950)…ng. For the same reasons that we dismissed defendants’ appeal, this Court affirmed Article III of the District Court decree. Our order also carried the sanction of an injunction against violation of the decree, “pending further order of this Court.” 339 U. S. 960. The issues left for determination in this appeal are those raised by the United States in its effort to have the provisions of the District Court decree enlarged. It seeks to extend the injunctions against violations of the Sherman Act to cover gy…
-
United States Gypsum Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., 352 U.S. 457 (U.S. 1957)…ded, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1-3. 67 F. Supp. 397. 333 U. S. 364. The opinion of the court, and the dissenting opinion of the late Judge Stephens, are not officially reported. They appear at pp. 137-140, 478, of the record on this appeal. 339 U. S. 959. 339 U. S. 960. 340 U. S. 76. 339 U. S. 960. The significance of these various holdings as it bears upon the issues in the present controversy is dealt with later. Infra, pp. 468-473. In the case of National and Certain-teed the default period began with the F…1 / 2