United States v. Fmc Corp. & Am. Viscose Corp., 321 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Fmc Corp. & Am. Viscose Corp., 321 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hamilton v. Nakai (ca9, 1972-01-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hamilton v. Nakai
9th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. F M C Corp., 9 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 534 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hamilton v. Nakai
9th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. F M C Corp., 9 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 534 .
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
FMC CORPORATION and American Viscose Corporation, Appellees
18753_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 30, 1963.
321 F.2d 534
William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Wright, Robert B. Hum-mel, Lionel Kestenbaum, Joel E. Hoffman, Lewis Bernstein, Nicolaus Bruns, Jr., and Carl D. Lobell, Attys., AntiTrust Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C.; Lyle L. Jones, Atty., AntiTrust Div., Dept, of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Francis R. Kirkham and William E. Mussman, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee FMC Corp., Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Whitney North Seymour and William J. Manning, New York City, for appellee American Viscose Corp.
Hamley, Duniway, Mathes.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal, purportedly taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), from an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction. The action was brought by the United States under section 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 25) to enjoin the acquisition by one of the ap-pellees of the “operating assets” of the other, as being in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18). On June 27, 1963, this court granted a stay, pending appeal.

We are of the opinion that we lack .jurisdiction of this appeal, by reason of the provisions of the Expediting Act of 1903 (C. 544, 32 Stat. 823) now 15 U.S.C. § 29. See: United States v. California Cooperative Canneries, 1929, 279 U.S. 553, 558, 49 S.Ct. 423, 73 L.Ed. 838; Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 1944, 322 U.S. 137, 142, 64 S.Ct. 905, 88 L.Ed. 1188; United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 196, 201-202, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554; De Beers Mines v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 212, 217, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 89 L.Ed. 1566; Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 1962, 370 U.S. 294, 305, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510; Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 3 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 614, 615; National Ass’n. of Real Estate Boards v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 176 F.2d 631; United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 2 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 90. We are unable to agree with the contrary decision of the Third Circuit in United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 1963, 320 F.2d 509 (June 5, 1963).

The stay granted by the order of June 27, 1963, is dissolved. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.