Legal Opinion · Dissent

Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., Limited

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 31, 1951No. 21810_1Published

1DissentFrank, Circuit Judge

1. I think the anti-anti-trust lawyers and their clients will welcome the foregoing decision for two reasons: First, it breathes new life into the remains of the decrepit doctrine of United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300,1 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992, thereby condoning a form of price-fixing which will simplify evasion of the anti-trust laws. Second, it sanctions retail price-fixing of imported products, by reading the provisions of the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 — designated by Congress as an amendment to the Sherman Act of 1890 — into those sections of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894…

2Cases cited68 opinions

  1. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. American Tobacco Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
  5. United States v. Borden Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939

63 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