Legal Opinion

United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co.

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided March 31, 1920No. 4489PublishedCited by 27 opinions

In Equity. Suit by the United States against the United Shoe Machinery Company and others. Decree for plaintiff in conformity with the opinion. The allegations in the complaint, as well as the clauses in the leases claimed to be in violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 731, c. 323 [section 8835c, U. S. Comp. St. 1918]), are set out in the former opinion of this court (234 Fed. 127) on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint.

Read the full summary

In Equity. Suit by the United States against the United Shoe Machinery Company and others. Decree for plaintiff in conformity with the opinion. The allegations in the complaint, as well as the clauses in the leases claimed to be in violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 731, c. 323 [section 8835c, U. S. Comp. St. 1918]), are set out in the former opinion of this court (234 Fed. 127) on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint. It is therefore unnecessary to again state them in this opinion. The answers of the defendants allege that each of the defendant corporations…

1Opinion of the CourtTrieber, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The evidence adduced by the parties is very voluminous. It consists of 26 printed volumes of oral testimony, and in addition thereto 4 large volumes of copies of leases, leases used before as well as since the enactment of the Clayton Act; copies of the record of the former action between the same parties under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Comp. St. §§ 8820-8823, 8827-8830), reported'in 222 Fed. 349, and 247 U. S. 32, 38 Sup. Ct. 473, 62 L. Ed. 968, pleaded as res adjudicata; numerous exhibits of shoes in their various stages of manufacture, some of them…

2Cases cited129 opinions

  1. Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  4. Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. International Business MacHines Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. New Jersey Wood Finishing Company v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Essexwire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
  5. Independent School District of Cedar Rapids v. Iowa Employment Security CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946

22 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