15 U.S.C. § 1
Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9,885
cases (816 in the last 5 years), 1921–2026 · leading case: Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008).
Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008). “("MLBP"), as the exclusive licensing agent for Major League Baseball (or "MLB") clubs' intellectual property, violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , and asserting "related state law claims" (Salvino brief on appeal at 2).”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). “Our decision in Twombly illustrates the two-pronged approach.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “Liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1 , requires a “contract, combination .”
ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012). “District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Eaton used unlawful agreements in restraint of trade, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ; acted unlawfully to maintain a monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007). “The question presented by the instant case is whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason, the usual standard applied to determine if there is a violation of § 1.”
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992). “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 2 (1988 ed., Supp. II).”
N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 - 2. NASL requests preliminary injunctive relief in the form of a Division II league designation and permanent relief enjoining USSF from promulgating the Standards to separate leagues into divisions.”
Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984). “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 , but that Yoder was not part of the conspiracy.”
FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020). “The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modern chip…”
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010). “After purchasing the mattress, Jacobs brought this antitrust action in the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, against TPX under the Sherman Act, *1332 15 U.S.C. § 1 . [3] He claims that TPX created an "unreasonable restraint of trade" in violation of the Act in two…”
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988). “§ 26 ) for damages, injunctive and equitable relief by reason of its violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U. S. C. §§ 1 & 2) . . . ." App. 7. The complaint alleged that Colt's letters, litigation tactics, and "[o]the[r] .”
Bus. Elec. Corp. v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988). “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 , only if there is an express or implied agreement to set resale prices at some level.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.