15 U.S.C. § 1224
Antitrust laws as affected
No provision of this chapter shall repeal, modify, or supersede, directly or indirectly, any provision of the antitrust laws of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1959–1979 · leading case: Rea v. Ford Motor Co., 355 F. Supp. 842 (W.D. Pa. 1973).
Rea v. Ford Motor Co., 355 F. Supp. 842 (W.D. Pa. 1973). “It will be observed that under Section 4 of the Automobile Dealers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1224 , it is provided that this Act shall not repeal, modify or supersede directly or indirectly any provision of the antitrust laws and it has been held that it was intended to supplement the…”
Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1979). ““No provision of [the Dealers’ Act] shall repeal, modify, or supersede, directly or indirectly, any provision[s] of the antitrust laws of the United States” 15 U.S.C. § 1224 . We assume a reciprocal preservation of the reach of the Dealers’ Act by the antitrust laws so that both…”
Staten Island Motors, Inc. v. Am. Motors Sales Corp., 169 F. Supp. 378 (D.N.J. 1959). “” The asserted third cause of action of Motors under the Dealers’ Day in Court Act, supra, must fail.”
Rea v. Ford Motor Co., 406 F. Supp. 271 (W.D. Pa. 1975). “1971), the same rationale should apply to an action by an automobile dealer who has been wronged by a violation of the Automobile Dealers’ Act as to other sections of the antitrust laws, i.”
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.