United States v. Hudnut
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
It is hardly useful to review in detail the 73 cases of retailers to whom the defendant sold its goods, and who were cut off for price-cutting, and reinstated. These are but a small fraction of 40,000 customers, who purchased its perfumes and toilet articles. I should not regard the suit as a reasonable one, except for the recent case of the Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Co., 257 U. S. 441, 42 S. Ct. 150, 66 L. Ed. 307,19 A. L. R. 882, decided by a narrow majority. That case, however, did not hold that a suggestion by a seller to his…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Frey & Son, Inc. v. Cudahy Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Baran v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1919
3Cited by3 opinions
- Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
- United States v. Uniroyal, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Fresh Kist Produce, LLC. v. Choi Corp., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002