15 U.S.C. § 11
Forfeiture of property in transit
Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy, and being the subject thereof, mentioned in section 8 of this title, imported into and being within the United States or being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory or the District of Columbia, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1945–2013 · leading case: De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945).
De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945). “10 15 U. S. C. § 11 . 11 Deckert v. Independence Corp.”
United States v. Sam C. Martino, Joseph C. Russello & Rolando Gonzalez Rodriguez, 681 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1982). “, 15 U.S.C. § 11 (forfeiture of property acquired in violation of anti-trust laws); 15 U.”
Altemose Constr. Co. v. Atl., Cape May & Parts of Burlington, Ocean & Cumberland Counties Bldg. Trades Council, 493 F. Supp. 1181 (D.N.J. 1980). “This section provides [e]very person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and [be…”
Comfort Equip. Co. v. Steckler. Burch Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Steckler, 212 F.2d 371 (7th Cir. 1954). “§ 6 ], or under § 76 of the Wilson Act [ 15 U.S.C.A. § 11 ], and the complaint and affidavits do not purport so to charge.”
United West Coast Theatres Corp. v. South Side Theatres, 86 F. Supp. 109 (S.D. Cal. 1949). “570 , § 76, 15 U.S.C.A. § 11 . A Federal statute of limitations has long been applicable to such civil proceedings, and the Act at bar unquestionably operated to suspend that statute.”
United West Coast Theatres Corp. v. South Side Theatres, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 109 (S.D. Cal. 1949). “570 , § 76, 15 U.S.C.A. § 11 . A Federal statute of limitations has long been applicable to such civil proceedings, and the Act at bar unquestionably operated to suspend that statute.”
Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC (2d Cir. 2013). “§ 10 1692a(6),1 alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 11 1692g.2 Plaintiffs allege that Forman Holt’s collection notice violated the FDCPA by stating that 12 the Plaintiffs could only dispute the validity of a debt in writing.”
DCI Mktg., Inc. v. Justrite Mfg. Co., 213 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Wis. 2002). “Justóte alleges that statements in the letters were false and misleading and that DCI, therefore, violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 11 25(a), and Illinois tort law prohibitions on trade disparagement, tor-tious interference with contract and unfair competition.”
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.