Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (Pub. L. 63–212, 38 Stat. 730, enacted October 15, 1914, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52–53), is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency.
Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court case which examined the labor provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act and reaffirmed the prior ruling in Loewe v. Lawlor that a secondary boycott was an illegal restraint on trade.
The United States Department of Justice alone may bring criminal antitrust suits under federal antitrust laws. [65] Perhaps the most famous antitrust enforcement actions brought by the federal government were the break-up of AT&T's local telephone service monopoly in the early 1980s [ 66 ] and its actions against Microsoft in the late 1990s .
Standard Oil (Refinery No. 1 in Cleveland, Ohio, pictured) was a major company broken up under United States antitrust laws.. The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history.
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; Clayton Antitrust Act , 15 U.S.C. § 18 Syufy Enterprises , 903 F.2d 659 ( 9th Cir. 1990), was an antitrust case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Similarly, the DOJ could rely on section three of the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act, which forbids acts that will “substantially lessen competition,” or section five of the 1914 Federal Trade ...
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act does not authorize a U.S. state to sue for damages for an injury to its general economy allegedly attributable to a violation of the United States antitrust law.
The government sought Continental Can's divestiture of the assets of Hazel-Atlas, arguing that the merger was a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The government claimed ten product markets existed, including the can industry, the glass container industry, and various lines of commerce defined by the end use of the containers.