Legal Opinion
United States v. Seville Industrial MacHinery Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 4, 1988No. Crim. 87-31PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SAROKIN, District Judge.
The defendants in this criminal antitrust case move for dismissal of the indictment. The motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On September 10, 1987, a grand jury indicted nineteen corporate and seventeen individual defendants[ 1 ] for violating federal antitrust law and for conspiring to defraud the United States. The court has accepted guilty pleas from, and sentenced, a number of the defendants. The remaining defendants now move to dismiss the indictment for legal insufficiency. Because defendants contend that the facts alleged in the indictment, even if proved beyond a…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- McNally v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pines Grazing Ass'n v. Flying Joseph Ranch, LLCIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
- Tennsco Corp. v. Estey Metal Products, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- United States v. ReicherDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1991
- NORTH PENN TOWNS, LP v. CONCERT GOLF PARTNERS, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021