United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 339 U.S. 960 (1950). · Go Syfert
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 339 U.S. 960 (1950). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Glen Ellyn Savings & Loan Ass'n (ilnd, 1984-11-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1950 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1950 1988 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Glen Ellyn Savings & Loan Ass'n
N.D. Ill. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. LaSalle Steel Co., 178 F.2d 829, 836 (7th Cir.1949) (National Labor Relations Act case), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 963 , 70 S.Ct. 996 , 94 L.Ed. 1372 (1950).
discussed Cited "see" Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
5th Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. LaSalle Steel Co., 7 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 829, 832, note 1 , cert. denied, 339 U.S. 963 , 70 S.Ct. 996 , 94 L.Ed. 1372 ; NLRB v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 287, 294, 298, 301 ; E.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
United States Gypsum Co.
No. 670.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 29, 1950.
339 U.S. 960
Consideration, Jackson, Questions, Took.
Published

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In this case probable jurisdiction is noted. The motions to supplement the record are granted. Article III of the decree of the District Court of November 7, 1949, reading as follows: “The defendant companies have acted in concert in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states in the eastern territory of the United States to fix, maintain and control the prices of gypsum board and have monopolized trade and commerce in the gypsum board industry in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,” is affirmed. The corporate defendants and Samuel M. Gloyd, doing business as Texas Cement Plaster Company, are enjoined, pending further order of this Court, from (1) enforcing in any manner whatsoever the provisions of their current license agreements fixing, maintaining, or stabilizing prices of gypsum board or the terms and conditions of sale thereof, and (2) from entering into or performing any agreement or understanding in restraint of trade and commerce in gypsum board among the several states in the eastern territory of the United States by license agreements to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of gypsum board or by license or other concerted action arranging the terms and conditions of sale thereof.

Mr. Justice Jackson and[*961] Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these questions.