enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Swift & Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_&_Co._v._United_States

    Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to regulate monopolies if it has a direct effect on commerce.

  3. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimel_v._Florida_Board_of...

    Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

  4. United States v. Google LLC (2020) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google...

    United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.

  5. Criticisms of corporations - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_corporations

    These entities were sometimes awarded legal monopoly in designated regions of the world, such as the British East India Company. Furthermore, the context of the quote points to the complications inherent in chartered joint-stock companies. Each company had a Courts of Governors and day-to-day duties were overseen by local managers.

  6. History of corporate law in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporate_law...

    However, given the restrictive nature of state corporation laws, many companies preferred to seek a special legislative act for incorporation to attain privileges or monopolies, even until the late nineteenth century. In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations rights they had not previously recognized in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.

  7. Flood v. Kuhn - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_v._Kuhn

    A year later, the Florida Supreme Court was considering another case related to the Giants' possible move to that state. The state's attorney general , Bob Butterworth , had issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to the NL and other parties in an attempt to find out whether any of them broke Florida state antitrust law to keep the team from ...

  8. United States v. Alcoa - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

    United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), [1] is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law.Judge Learned Hand's opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

  9. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._E._C...

    In Chief Justice Melville Fuller's majority opinion, the Court held that the U.S. Congress could not regulate manufacturing and thus gave state governments the sole power to take legal action against manufacturing monopolies. [1] The case has never been overruled, but in Swift & Co. v. United States and subsequent cases, the Court has held that ...