C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. v. United States, 344 U.S. 892 (1952). · Go Syfert
Search
C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. v. United States, 344 U.S. 892 (1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jones v. Salem National Bank (In re Fullop) (ca7, 1993-09-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. Salem National Bank (In re Fullop)
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riverview State Bank v. Ernest, 198 F.2d 876, 881 (10th Cir.) (pursuant to mortgage and transfer and division orders, the secured party constructively possessed oil produced under lease and thus its rights were superior to those of the trustee in bankruptcy), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 212 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952).
cited Cited "see" State of Montana v. SuperAmerica
D. Mont. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952). 11.
discussed Cited "see" Jack Weit v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago (2×)
7th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952); Esco Corporation v. United States, 340 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1965). 18 However, when the plaintiff or prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence alone, the inference of unlawful agreement rather than individual business judgment must be the compelling, if not exclusive, rational inference.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 1974 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (nationwide price uniformity, few competitors, previous illegal licensing agreements containing minimum price provisions, artificial standardization of product, industry-wide raising of prices at a time of surplus, policing of dealers to maintain minimum prices as contained in price lists published and distributed by defendants, identical bids, uniform use of delivered pricing system).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.
v.
United States
No. 383.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 24, 1952.
344 U.S. 892
Francis R. Kirkham for petitioners., Acting Solicitor General Stern, Acting Assistant Attorney General Clapp and Daniel M. Friedman for the United States.
Published

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.