Chicago Sugar Co. v. Am. Sugar Refining Co., 338 U.S. 948 (1950). · Go Syfert
Search
Chicago Sugar Co. v. Am. Sugar Refining Co., 338 U.S. 948 (1950). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
81 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 34 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sawhney v. Mobil Oil Corp. (njd, 1997-07-10) · Strongest negative: Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Agriculture (cadc, 1974-09-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951 1988 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Agriculture
D.C. Cir. · 1974 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see note 16 infra. 8 . 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950). 9 .
discussed Cited "see" Sawhney v. Mobil Oil Corp.
D.N.J. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.1949) (permitting a manufacturer to sell some of its products through a wholesaler at a lower price and some of its goods to a retailer at a higher price), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950).
discussed Cited "see" National Information Services, Inc., an Oregon Corporation v. Trw, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, and Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, National Information Services, Inc., an Oregon Corporation Credit Data of Illinois, Inc., an Illinois Corporation Informative Research, Inc., a California Corporation Cdb Infotek, a California Corporation v. Trw, Inc., an Ohio Corporation Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith, 47 F.3d at 99-100 , (citing ADM Corp. v. Speedmaster Packaging Corp., 525 F.2d 662, 665 (3d Cir.1975), and Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1, 11 (7th Cir.1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950)).
discussed Cited "see" National Information Services, Inc. v. TRW, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith, 47 F.3d at 99-100 , (citing ADM Corp. v. Speedmaster Packaging Corp., 525 F.2d 662, 665 (3d Cir.1975), and Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1, 11 (7th Cir.1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950)).
discussed Cited "see" Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rath Packing Co.
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
“A party who has obtained some relief usually will be considered the ‘prevailing party’ ... even if it has not succeeded on all of its claims.” Superturf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1287 (8th Cir.1981); see Coyne Delany Co. v. Capital Development Board, 717 F.2d 385, 390 (7th Cir.1983). “ ‘[T]he prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs and it is incumbent upon the losing party to overcome that presumption ... [because] denial of costs is in the nature of a penalty for some defection ... in the course of the litigation.’ ” Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557…
discussed Cited "see" Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Rath Packing Company
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
"A party who has obtained some relief usually will be considered the 'prevailing party' ... even if it has not succeeded on all of its claims." Superturf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1287 (8th Cir.1981); see Coyne Delany Co. v. Capital Development Board, 717 F.2d 385, 390 (7th Cir.1983). " '[T]he prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs and it is incumbent upon the losing party to overcome that presumption ... [because] denial of costs is in the nature of a penalty for some defection ... in the course of the litigation.' " Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d 521, 526 (…
discussed Cited "see" Esso Standard (Libya), Inc. v. SS Wisconsin
S.D. Tex. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. den., 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950) ; Lewis v. Pennington, 400 F.2d 806, 819 (6th Cir. 1968); Lichter Foundation, Inc. v. Welch, 269 F.2d 142, 146 (6th Cir. 1959).
cited Cited "see" Slater v. Cannon
D.C. · 1952 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 7 Cir., 176 F.2d 1 , certiorari denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sun Ship, Inc. v. Lehman
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also cases cited in Baez dissent at 23-30. . 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950). . id. at 11. .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Schaulis v. CTB/McGraw-Hill, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1, 11 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950).
cited Cited "see, e.g." John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Crossplaintiffs-Appellants v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Harry P. Stansberry, Individually and T/a Stansberry Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Jesse C. Fesler and Nola Fesler, Individually and T/a Fesler Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Corss John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. U. R. Arnold and Mrs. U. R. Arnold, Individually and T/a Arnold Strip Mining Company, a Partnership, and the Arnold Coal Company, Inc., Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Defendant- John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Tennco, Incorporated, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a E. C. McPherson Coal Company, M. W. Norquest and E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a McPherson Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Dean Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, W. R. Parton D/B/A W. R. Parton Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America
6th Cir. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lewis v. Pennington
6th Cir. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 176 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1949), cert, denied, 338 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 486 , 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chicago Sugar Co.
v.
American Sugar Refining Co.
No. 476.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 6, 1950.
338 U.S. 948
Leslie M. O’Connor for petitioner. Kenneth F. Burgess for respondent.
Published

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.