SWIFT & CO., INC., ET AL.

v.

WICKHAM, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE & MARKETS OF NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1965)
  …rom the single-judge determination, and in this Court from the three-judge decision in accordance with the direct appeal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1964 ed.). The threshold question before us, the consideration of which we postponed to the merits (379 U. S. 997), is whether this Court, rather than the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction to review the District Court determination, and this in turn depends on whether a three-judge court was required. We hold that it was not. At the outset, we agree with the…
• Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1965)
  …t Heilberg’s action was thereby mooted. Instead the District Court reached the merits and unanimously held that the statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 236 F. Supp. 405. The Government appealed and we noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U. S. 997. There is no longer even a colorable question of mootness in these cases, for the new procedure, as described above, requires the postal authorities to send a separate notice for each item as it is received and the addressee to make a separate requ…
• United States v. Egidio Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1979)
  …lity to conduct an interstate business is sufficient to bring the extortion within the play of the Hobbs Act.” U. S. v. Mazzei, 521 F. 2d at 642; U. S. v. Addonizio, 451 F. 2d at 77; U. S. v. Provenzano, 334 F. 2d 678, 692-93 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 997, 85 S.Ct. 440, 13 L.Ed.2d 544 (1964). “[A]ll that is required to bring an extortion within the statute is proof of a reasonably probable effect on commerce, however minimal, as result of the extortion.” U. S. v. Spagnolo, 546 F. 2d 1117, 1119 (4th C…