United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co. (1963)
green
· 725 citation events
across 41 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196319942026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982)
A. M. in 1941 and 1942 are significant in consideration of whether the seniority system has its genesis in racial discrimination.” 624 F. 2d, at 532. 4 As the majority acknowledges, where findings of fact “‘are made under an erroneous view of controlling legal principles, the clearly erroneous rule does not apply, and the findings may not stand.’” Ante, at 285, quoting 624 F. 2d, at 533, n. 6; see also Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., 419 U. S. 318, 323 (1974); United States …
green
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U. S. 174, 194, n. 9 (1963).
green
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
Co., 374 U. S. 174, 197, 199-200 (1963) (WHITE, J., concurring).
WHITE, J., concurring
green
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)
Co., 374 U. S. 174, 196-197 (1963). [9] Zenith's burden of proving the fact of damage under § 4 of the Clayton Act is satisfied by its proof of some damage flowing from the unlawful conspiracy; inquiry beyond this minimum point goes only to the amount and not the fact of damage.
green
United States v. General Motors Corp. (1966)
Co., 374 U. S. 174, 194, n. 9 ; United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., 364 U. S. 520, 526 , and cases there cited.
green
Vinick v. United States (2000)
Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) (“Insofar as that conclusion derived from the court’s application of an improper standard to the facts, it may be corrected as a matter of law.”); Parke, Davis, 362 U.S. at 44 , 80 S.Ct. 503 (noting that in these circumstances, the appeals court is “reviewing a question of law, namely, whether the District Court applied the proper standard to essentially undisputed facts”); Bergersen v. Commissioner, 109 F.3…
“Insofar as that conclusion derived from the court’s application of an improper standard to the facts, it may be corrected as a matter of law.”
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 196-97 , 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1785 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) (“[I]t is ... well settled that the possession of a valid patent or patents does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”); In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187, 213 (2d Cir.2006) (“[TJhere is no injury to the market cognizable under existing antitrust law, as long as competition is restrained only within the s…
“[I]t is ... well settled that the possession of a valid patent or patents does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”
green
Joblove v. Barr Labs. Inc. (2005)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 196-97 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) (“[T]he possession of a valid patent ... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Andrx Phams., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int’l, 256 F.3d 799, 802 (D.C.Cir.2001) (“Although the Congress was interested in increasing the availability of generic drugs, it also wanted to protect the p…
“[T]he possession of a valid patent ... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”
green
In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation (2005)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 196-97 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) ("[T]he possession of a valid patent... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int'l, 256 F.3d 799, 802 (D.C.Cir.2001) ("Although the Congress was interested in increasing the availability of generic drugs, it also wanted to protect the p…
"[T]he possession of a valid patent... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly."
green
Joblove, Allied Servs. v. Barr Labs. Inc. (2005)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 196-97 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) (“[T]he possession of a valid patent ... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int'l, 256 F.3d 799, 802 (D.C.Cir.2001) (“Although the Congress was interested in increasing the availability of generic drugs, it also wanted to protect the …
“[T]he possession of a valid patent ... does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”
Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 196–97, 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1785 (1963) (“[I]t is . . . well settled that the possession of a valid patent or patents does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”); In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187, 213 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[T]here is no injury to the market cognizable under existing antitrust law, as long as competition is restrained only within the scope of the pa…
“[I]t is . . . well settled that the possession of a valid patent or patents does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.”
green
Jennie Athas v. United States (1990)
“When a trial court’s conclusion is ‘derived from the court’s application of an improper standard to the facts, it may be corrected as a matter of law.’ ” EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd., 745 F.2d 715, 722 (1st Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. The Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194, n. 8 , 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1783, n. 8 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963)).
A judicial tradition, dating at least from Judge Taft’s opinion in Addyston Pipe in 1898, 18 bars the courts from weighing conflicting economic predictions to determine the public interest in antitrust litigation. 19 Even when applying the “rule of reason,” the courts have not inquired whether “ ‘on some ultimate reckoning of social or economic debits or credits’ the conduct may be deemed beneficial. ‘A value choice of such magnitude is beyond the ordinary limits of judicial…
green
Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (2019)
"Of course, if the lower court applies the wrong legal standard, no deference attaches, and we must proceed to correct the error."
green
United States v. Kerry Johansen (1996)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 192-93 (1963).
green
United States v. .697 Acres of Land in Jasper County, Eula Mae Williams, Claimant-Appellant (1991)
United States v. Reynolds, 856 F.2d 675 (4th Cir.1988). 7 (Emphasis supplied.) Appellant argues that the court's misinterpretation of the burden of proof resulted in an incorrect decision to forfeit Ms. Williams' property. 8 A determination of whether the district court applied the proper standard is a question of law, United States v. Singer, 374 U.S. 174, 192-93 (1963), permitting this Court to review this case de novo.
green
P.E. Bazemore v. William C. Friday, President of Consolidated University of North Carolina, (Two Cases). P.E.… (1988)
Singer, supra, 374 U.S. at 194, n. 9 , 83 S.Ct. at 1784 n. 9.
green
Bazemore v. Friday (1988)
Singer, supra, 374 U.S. at 194, n. 9 , 83 S.Ct. at 1784 n. 9.
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194-95 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 n. 9 (1963); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 (CA5 1972).
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 175, n. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1774 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963), Mr. Justice Clark, writing for the Court, said: Whatever may have been the wisdom of the Expediting Act in providing direct appeals in antitrust cases at the time of its enactment in 1903, time has proven it unsatisfactory, [citation omitted] Direct appeals not only place a great burden on the [Supreme] Court but also deprive us of the valuable assistance of the Courts of Appeals.
green
International Business MacHines Corporation v. United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp… (1973)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 175, n. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1774 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963), Mr. Justice Clark, writing for the Court, said: 37 Whatever may have been the wisdom of the Expediting Act in providing direct appeals in antitrust cases at the time of its enactment in 1903, time has proven it unsatisfactory. [citation omitted] Direct appeals not only place a great burden on the [Supreme] Court but also deprive us of the valuable assistance of the Courts of Appeals. 38 Writing in di…
green
9 Fair empl.prac.cas. 502, 9 Fair empl.prac.cas. 508, 19 Wage & Hour Cas. (Bn 336, 19 Wage & Hour Cas. (Bn 37… (1970)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194, n. 9 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963), conclusions of fact induced by erroneous legal standards are not within coverage of Rule 52(a).
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 195 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823, n. 9 (1963); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 , 80 S.Ct. 1190 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960).
green
Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194, n. 9 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963), conclusions of fact induced by erroneous legal standards are not within coverage of Rule 52(a).
green
Ben C. Prince v. Packer Manufacturing Company (1969)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194-195, fn. 9 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 , 80 S.Ct. 1190 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960); Wisconsin Screw Co. v. Fire *37 man’s Fund Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 297 F. 2d 697, 698 (1962).
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 195 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823, n. 9 (1963); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duber *94 stein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 , 80 S.Ct. 1190 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960).
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 175, n. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) ; United States v. FMC Corp., 84 S.Ct. 4 , 11 L.Ed.2d 20 (1963) ; Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 357-374 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962) (J.
green
Shelton v. Diamond International Corp. (1985)
green
United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co. (1964)
It was from this application after the interference was settled that the “Gegauf claim was taken verbatim,” (374 U. S. p. 185, 83 S.Ct. 1773 ).
green
Anderson v. Nelsen (2025)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 193 (1963)).
green
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Mylan N.V. (2024)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 195, 197 (1963)); Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. L.
green
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Mediatek, Inc. (2024)
Co., 374 U.S. 174 21 (1963)).
In United States v. --- Singer Manufacturing Company, which the FTC mentions in a footnote, FTC Opp’n 21 n.12, companies pooled their respective patents in a cross-licensing agreement specifically to push out - Japanese competitors. 374 U.S. 174, 189, 195 (1963).
green
In re: Thomas Condon v. (2007)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 193 , 83 S. Ct. 1773, 1783 (1963)); see Sorah v. Sorah (In re Sorah), 163 F.3d 397, 400 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Long v. Calhoun (In re Calhoun), 715 F.2d 1103, 1111 (6th Cir. 1983) (application of legal standards and allocation of the burden of proof are conclusions of law)); Luper v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (In re Carled, Inc.), 91 F.3d 811, 813 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Although the factual underpinnings of the bankruptcy court’s decision must be upheld unles…
citing Long v. Calhoun (In re Calhoun), 715 F.2d 1103, 1111 (6th Cir. 1983) (application of legal standards and allocation of the burden of proof are conclusions of law)
green
Avondale on Hayden, Inc. v. Hall (1983)
Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194-95 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1783-84, n. 9 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394 , 68 S.Ct. 525, 541 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
green
United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. (1973)
Co., 374 U.S. 174, 190, n. 7 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963), American Tobacco, supra, 328 U.S. 781, 809 , 66 S.Ct. 1125 , 90 L.Ed. 1575 .
green
F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
See 374 U.S., at 194 -195 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 (finding that the agreement had "a common purpose to suppress the Japanese machine competition in the United States" (footnote omitted)).
green
Frances L. Power, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Marilyn K. Power v. Union Pacific Rail… (1981)
See United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n.9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 1784 n.9, 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 , 356 n.15 (5th Cir. 1972) (cited by Ritter v. Morton, 513 F.2d 942, 949 (9th Cir.)).
cited by Ritter v. Morton, 513 F.2d 942, 949 (9th Cir.)
green
Ralph Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (1975)
See United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 93 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); Case v. Morrisette, supra, 475 F.2d at 1307 ; Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 , 356 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1972).
See RCI Northeast Services Division v. Boston Edison Co., 822 F.2d 199, 203 (1st Cir.1987); see also United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 1784 n. 9, 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963).
See generally United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 1784 n. 9, 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc., 555 F.2d 862 , 876 n. 29 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
green
3 Fair empl.prac.cas. 862, 4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 2, 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8324 United States of America, Plain… (1971)
E. g., Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 5 Cir. 1954, 218 F.2d 217, 219-220 ; see United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 1963, 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 . 6 With these thoughts in mind, we proceed to consideration of the physical environment framing this case.
green
United States v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. (1971)
E. g., Galena Oaks Corp. v. Scofield, 5 Cir. 1954, 218 F.2d 217, 219-220 ; see United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 1963, 374 U. S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 .
See id. at 196 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 ; see also American Cyanimid Co., 72 F.T.C. 623 (1967), aff'd sub nom.
green
In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (2005)
See, e.g., United States v. Singer Mfg., Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963); United States v. New Wrinkle, 342 U.S. 371 , 72 S.Ct. 350 , 96 L.Ed. 417 (1952).
green
Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Allen (In Re Allen) (1986)
See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 , 855 n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 2182 , 2189 n. 15, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982) (citing United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174 , 194 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1773 , 1784 n. 9, 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963)); see also Annot., Supreme Court’s Views as to What Constitutes Factual Issue Under “Clearly Erroneous” Standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), Providing that Findings of Fact Shall Not Be Set Aside Unless Cl…
See United States v. Singer Manufacturing Company, 374 U.S. 174, 193 , 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1783 , 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963).
green
Carter v. Variflex, Inc. (2000)
See Singer, 374 U.S. at 195 , 83 S.Ct. 1773 (finding common purpose to destroy the Japanese sale of infringing machines); Zenith, 395 U.S. at 118 , 89 S.Ct. at 1574 (finding clear purpose to exclude American concerns from Canadian market).