HUDSON DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

v.

UPJOHN COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1964)
  …the disparities in the [*854] apportionment of Senate seats under Amendment No. 7’s provisions cannot be rationalized.8 Notices of appeal from the District Court’s decision were timely filed, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 9, 1963. 375 U. S. 938. II. When this litigation was commenced, apportionment of seats in the Colorado General Assembly was based on certain provisions of the State Constitution and statutory provisions enacted to implement them. Article V, § 45, of the Colorado Constit…
• United States v. Penn-Olin Chem. Co., 378 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1964)
  …ord, [*161] violated neither of these sections and found it unnecessary to reach the first question. 217 F. Supp. 110. In view of the importance of each of these questions in the administration of the antitrust laws, we noted probable jurisdiction. 375 U. S. 938. We have concluded that a joint venture as organized here would be subject to the regulation of § 7 of the Clayton Act and, reaching the merits, we hold that while on the present record there is no violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, the District C…
• Hudson Distribs., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 377 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1964)
  …Ninety percent* of this case remains submerged. I suspect that the explanation for the Court’s snipping off and deciding the 10% that has reached the surface lies in the fact that the Court failed to dismiss the appeal when it was first presented, 375 U. S. 938, 939, because the jurisdictional objections to review were not then so apparent.8 I am at a loss to understand why the Court chooses to compound the original error, rather than to correct it. I would dismiss both appeals. “Pinal judgments or decre…