FITZGERALD

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Byers v. State, 166 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
  …[*765] PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Dykes v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 675; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 224; Thomas v. United States, 290 F. 2d 696 (9th Cir.1961); cert. den. 368 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 446, 7 L.Ed.2d 401.…
• Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1963)
  …e is. now here on. the merits, after the three-judge District Court refused to enjoin the appellee state officers from enforcing § 792 of the California Agricultural Code against the appellant' growers. 197 F. Supp. 780, probable jurisdiction noted, 368 U. S. 964, 965. In view of the'Court’s disposition of the matter today, it is probable that this case like a revenant will return to us within another few Terms with, a still moré copious record. • Appellants grow, package, and market Florida avocados in int…
• Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1963)
  …anagra, holding that none of their respective practices violated the Sherman Act. 193 F. Supp. 18. Both Pan American and the United States come here on direct appeals (15 U. S. C. § 29); and we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits. 368 U. S. 964, 966. When the transactions, now challenged as restraints of trade and monopoly, were first consummated, air carriers were not subject to pervasive regulation. In 1938 the Civil Aeronautics Act (52 Stat. 973) was passed which [*301] was superseded…