United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Chief Judge.
The incident of getting an antitrust case to- trial has recently been narrated. The problem [“Prolonged proceedings and a massive record are almost inevitable if an antitrust controversy is carried to court; for the rules of law that have been developed, with respect to both the offense and the proof which may be adduced, generally permit the entire history of a major company or industry to be placed in issue.”] has been explored and examined as to procedures that have and have not been utilized in the courts, by McAllister1 in a recent essay which contains excellent notes…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Pfotzer v. Aqua System, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- United States v. General Electric Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1949
- United States v. Vehicular Parking, Ltd.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1981
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1966