Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
The main contention of the appellants is that the conspiracy proved restrained only intrastate commerce, of which the District Court had no jurisdiction. For an understanding of this argument, some statement is necessary of how the poultry business was conducted and how the appellants interfered with it. To summarize is necessarily to omit, and almost inevitably results in a statement which to one party or the other seems vitally defective. The summary now to be given attempts to draw the picture only in broadest outline.
At least 98 per cent, of the live poultry coming…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Williamson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Durland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- United States v. PuglieseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Egan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- George v. Celotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United States v. National Lead Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.