KIEFER-STEWART CO.

v.

JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1951)
  …regarding the legal composition of the jury and the fair conduct of the trial. We granted certiorari, strictly limited, however, to the contention that §§ 2 and 3 of the Smith Act, inherently and as applied, violated the First and Fifth Amendments. 340 U. S. 863. No attempt was made to seek an enlargement of the range of questions thus defined, and these alone are now open for our consideration. All others are foreclosed by the decision of the Court of Appeals. As thus limited, the controversy in this Cour…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1957)
  …er to incite to the overthrow of the Government ....’’ (P. 15.) See also pp. 4, 8, 11. See p. 326, infra. See United States v. Schneiderman, 106 F. Supp. 906, 923. The writ of certiorari in Dennis did not bring up the sufficiency of the evidence. 340 U. S. 863. See note 1, supra. The Court of Appeals stated, 225 F. 2d, at 151: “Finally, [referring to Dennis'] the opinion of the Court of Appeals and a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court gave approval of instructions of the trial judge in Dennis requ…
• Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1951)
  …her than restrained competition. It also held the evidence insufficient to show that respondents had acted in concert. Doubt as to the correctness [*213] of the decision on questions important in antitrust litigation prompted us to grant certiorari. 340 U. S. 863. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an agreement among competitors to fix maximum resale prices of their products does not violate the Sherman Act. For such agreements, no less than those to fix minimum prices, cripple the freedom of trader…