Legal Opinion

United States v. Deere & Co.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided November 9, 1949No. Civ. Nos. 2832-2834PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NORDBYE, Chief Judge.

These are separate anti-trust cases. Generally speaking, plaintiff charges in each case that defendant tried to compel dealers in its implements to handle only that particular defendant’s line of farm machinery and cancelled the dealership contract of dealers who refused to accede to such demands. Plaintiff seeks an injunction enjoining these practices. No conspiracy is charged.

Preliminary motions have been made 'by both sides in these cases. And pursuant to an interrogatory submitted by plaintiff in each case to the defendant, each defendant was required to furnish…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. In Re Quarles and ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  3. United States v. AndolschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  4. Vogel v. GruazSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  5. Worthington v. ScribnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Boeing Airplane Company v. Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board, Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board v. Boeing Airplane Company, Boeing Airplane Company, Cross-Appellant v. Thomas Coggeshall, Chairman, the Renegotiation Board, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
  2. Boeing Airplane Co. v. CoggeshallCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
  3. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1964
  4. United States v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1954
  5. United States v. Swift & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1959

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API