CLARK WALTER & SONS, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
CLARK WALTER & SONS, INC.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
392 U.S. 659
Supreme Court of the United States (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Fortas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 534 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1976)…ed only upon a strong showing of entitlement and of justification for failure to request intervention sooner. See United States v. Western Electric Co., 1968 Trade Cases ¶ 72, 415 (D.N.J.), aff’d sub nom., Clark Walter & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 392 U.S. 659, 88 S.Ct. 2286, 20 L.Ed.2d 1348 (1968); United States v. Blue Chip Stamp Co., 272 F.Supp. 432, 435-38 (C.D.Cal.1967), aff’d sub nom., Thrifty Shoppers Scrip Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 580, 88 S.Ct. 693, 19 L.Ed.2d 781 (1968). In these government…
-
United States v. W. Elec. Co., 409 F.2d 1377 (3d Cir. 1969)…fused to enforce the consent decree of January 24, 1956. See United States v. Western Electric Company, Incorporated, et al.— Application of Clark Walter & Sons, Inc., (D.N.J., C.A. 17-49), aff’d. sub nom. Clark Walter & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 392 U.S. 659, 88 S.Ct. 2286, 20 L. Ed.2d 1348 (1968). . Since the enforceability of the 1960 licensing agreement is irrelevant to our decision, discussion of Components’ alleged right to discovery on the point is unnecessary. . Paragraph (8) of its application…