UNITED STATES

v.

SEALY, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1966)
  …s poll tax.1 The three-judge [*665] District Court, feeling bound by our decision in Breedlove v. Buttles, 302 U. S. 277, dismissed the complaint. See 240 F. Supp. 270. The cases came here on appeal and we noted probable jurisdiction. 380 U. S. 930, 382 U. S. 806. While the right to vote in federal elections is conferred by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 314-315), the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned. It is argued that the right to v…
• United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1967)
  …had not proved conduct “in unreasonable restraint of [*352] trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.” The United States appealed under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted probable jurisdiction. 382 U. S. 806 (1965). There is no dispute that exclusive territories were allotted to the manufacturer-licensees. Sealy agreed with each licensee not to license any other person to manufacture or sell in the designated area; and the licensee agreed not to manufa…