Legal Opinion
United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
District Court, S.D. Iowa
Decided December 10, 1991No. Civ. 83-51-DPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
VIETOR, Chief Judge.
This is an antitrust action brought by the United States of America (“government”). The government alleges that a long-term lease agreement entered into in 1982 by which defendant Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (“ADM”) leased two corn wet milling plants, one in Iowa and one in New York, from defendant Nabisco Brands, Inc. (“Nabisco”) is an acquisition that may substantially lessen competition in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and constitutes a contract, combination…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States v. Philadelphia National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Cardinal Health, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- Federal Trade Commission v. CCC Holdings Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2001
- Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.