State v. Fullerton Lumber Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit Court, Turner County.. Hon. Robert B. Tripp, Judge. The Fullerton, Lumber Company and others, defendants, were convicted of a violation of Laws 1909, Chapter 224, Prohibiting conspiracies in restraint of trade, and they appeal. (1) Under point one of the opinion, Appellants cited: Const. Art. 5, Secs. 27, 28; Pol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit Court, Turner County.. Hon. Robert B. Tripp, Judge. The Fullerton, Lumber Company and others, defendants, were convicted of a violation of Laws 1909, Chapter 224, Prohibiting conspiracies in restraint of trade, and they appeal. (1) Under point one of the opinion, Appellants cited: Const. Art. 5, Secs. 27, 28; Pol. Code, Sec. 661. Respondent cited: Benedict v. Ralya, 1 S. D. 167; Meyer v. Mitchell, 1 S. D. 249; In re Nelson, 19 S. D. 214; Const., Art. 5, Secs. 27, 28, 33; Pol. Code, Sec. 661; Laws 1905, Ch. 92. (2) Under point two of the opinion, Appellants cited: Code Cr.…
1Opinion of the CourtPolley, J.
The defendants in this action were indicted under the provisions of chapter 224, Laws of 1909. The Fullerton Lumber Company, J. H. Queal '& Co., and "the Floete Lumber Company are corporations, and, at the time of filing the indictment, were engaged in selling lumber, coal, and building material, at iGeddes, ’ S. D. The defendants Kramer and Mahaney were the agents and in the employ of the Floete Lumber Company. L. C. Kroh.and F. S. Vaughn were the agents and in the employ of J. H. Queal & Co., and O. G. Meyer, R, C. Turner, and James Jordan were the agents and in the employ of the Fullerton…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hyde v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Williamson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Brown v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- State ex inf. Crow v. Firemen's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2007
- In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- State v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. DouglasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1944
- State v. SonnenscheinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.