ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (U.S. 1966)
  …y issue in aid of the appellate jurisdiction which might otherwise be defeated by the unauthorized action of the court below.” 217 U. S., at 280. Compare United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 247 F. Supp. 308, 316 (D. C. E. D. Mo. 1965), aff’d, 382 U. S. 12, with Reynolds Metals Co. v. F. T. C., 114 U. S. App. D. C. 2, 309 F. 2d 223 (1962). See Duke, op. cit. supra, note 2. The Court’s opinion today eschews the result in Arrow Transportation and fastens instead on footnote 22, 372 U. S., at 671, which…
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Frank, 388 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1968)
• United States v. Greater Buffalo Press, Inc., 402 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1971)
  …ed expansion in the South as a competitive threat. The status of the Sylacauga plant is a matter to be considered by the District Court under the controlling precedents. See, e. g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 247 F. Supp. 308, aff’d, 382 U. S. 12. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the drafting of a decree and the making of such additional findings both as respects the consent decree and the Sylacauga plant as may be appropriate or necessary for an effective remedy. Revers…