UNITED STATES
v.
HUCK MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1965-12-06
No. 8
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
382 U.S. 197 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 15 L. Ed. 2d 268 · 86 S. Ct. 385 · 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2447 · SCDB 1965-023
Cited by 12 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • David L. Trask in Bankr. of Magic Spuds, Inc. v. Susskind, 376 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1967)
    …) cert. den. 352 U.S. 971, 77 S.Ct. 362, 1 L.Ed.2d 324. See also Palmentere v. Campbell, 344 F. 2d 234 (8th Cir. 1965), Ellis v. Carter, 328 F. 2d 573 (9th Cir. 1964), United States v. Huck Manufacturing Co., 227 F.Supp. 791 (E.D.Mich.1964) affirmed 382 U.S. 197, 86 S.Ct. 385, 15 L.Ed.2d 268, Global Commerce Corporation v. Clark-Babbitt Industries, Inc., 255 F. 2d 105 (2nd Cir. 1958). Since we are not left with the definite and firm convictipn, based upon the entire evidence, that a mistake has been commi…
  • United States v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, 670 F.2d 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
    …titrust violation occurred. See 232 F.Supp. at 458. . See, e.g., L. Sullivan, supra, § 185; Adelman & Juenger, supra, at 285-88. . United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287, 68 S.Ct. 550, 92 L.Ed. 701 (1948); United States v. Huck Mfg. Co., 382 U.S. 197, 86 S.Ct. 385, 15 L.Ed.2d 268 (1965), aff’g 227 F.Supp. 791 (E.D.Mich.1964). . See also United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287, 68 S.Ct. 550, 92 L.Ed. 701 (1948) (price-fixing illegal where two patentees cross- [*1133] license each other’…
  • Bela Seating Co., Inc. v. Poloron Prods., Inc., 438 F.2d 733 (7th Cir. 1971)
    …den’s license, there is no invidious discrimination so as to offend the anti-trust law. See Extractol Process v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 153 F. 2d 264 (7th Cir. 1946); United States v. Huck Manufacturing Co., 227 F.Supp. 791, 804 (E.D.Mich.1964), aff’d 382 U.S. 197, 86 S.Ct. 385, 15 L.Ed.2d 268 (1965). Poloron's reliance upon Allied Research Products, Inc. v. Heatbath Corp., 300 F.Supp. 656 (N.D.Ill.1969); and Laitram Corp. v. King Crab, Inc., 244 F.Supp. 9 (D.C.Alaska 1965), is misplaced. In Allied, the cour…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw