U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 20

Repealed. Pub. L. 101–588, § 3, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2880

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases, 1935–2011 · leading case: Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 417 U.S. 703 (1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 417 U.S. 703 (1974). · cites it 6× “The federal statutes and regulations alleged to have been violated included § 10 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 20 ; § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.”
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965). · cites it 2× “734 , 15 U. S. C. § 20 (1964 ed.) (requiring competitive bidding for certain transactions between a common carrier and other corporations when there are common directors), United States v.”
Schleiff v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 43 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). · cites it 6× “In one of the actions, there is an added complaint that various transactions between B & O and C & O violated Section 10 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 20 ). C & O acquired control of B & O, effective February 4, 1963, having secured the approval of the' Interstate Commerce…”
Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. v. United States, 387 U.S. 485 (1967). · cites it 4× “The ICC explicitly rejected the argument that § 10 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 20 , requiring competitive bidding in certain situations, was superseded by § 20a.”
In Re Smith, 365 B.R. 770 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 3× “Whether the Court should order that Smith be held jointly and severally liable for the ill-gotten gains of Continental and Scioto as a ‘control person’ pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 20 (a).” Id. at 21 . • “h. Whether, in the case that the Court declines to hold Smith jointly and…”
Comm. of Consum. Servs. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 595 P.2d 871 (Utah 1979). · cites it 2× “[27] 15 U.S.C. § 20 (1976). [28] 158 U.S.App.D.”
Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. United States, 361 U.S. 173 (1960). “734 , 15 U. S. C. § 20 . Section 10 of the Clayton Act is, of course, an antitrust law, 12 and much of what we have just said relative to the problem of accommodation of § 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act and the antitrust law's is equally applicable to this contention.”
Charlotte Klinger & Eric Klinger v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., & Edward C. Rose, 432 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs sought trebled damages against B & O, claiming that B & O violated Section 10 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 20 (1964), when it purchased Reading’s half-interest in a jointly-owned produce terminal in Philadelphia in 1963.”
Rangen, Inc., a Corp., Buhl Feed & Ice Co., a Corp., & Elwood D. Grimes v. Sterling Nelson & Sons, Inc., a Corp., 351 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1965). “The gist of the indictment was that three of the railroad officers had accepted bribes from the purchaser of some of the railroad’s railway cars, as compensation for making the sale without competitive bidding. The Court, rejecting the Government’s contention that the bribes and…”
Nat'l Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 498 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “In 1971, BAR filed suit against Bangor Punta alleging violations of § 10 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 20 , various sections of the federal securities laws, and Maine statutory and common law, and seeking seven million dollars in damages for mismanagement, misappropriation,…”
United States v. Boston & Maine R.R., 380 U.S. 157 (1965). “That section provides in relevant part: “No common carrier engaged in commerce shall have any dealings in securities, supplies, or other articles of commerce, or shall make or have any contracts for construction or maintenance of any kind, to the amount of more than $50,000, in…”
Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 893 (D. Minnesota 1958). · cites it 2× “Minneapolis argues that the orders in suit are invalid for the following reasons: (1) Pennsylvania had violated Section 10 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S. C.A. § 20, since it and the Wilmington Trust Company, co-trustee of the McNear estate, had directors in common; (2) the…”
Show all 43 citing cases →
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.