The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act, and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition, the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any such proceeding may be pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not, and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966).
· cites it 6× “15 U. S. C. § 25 (1964 ed.). Since 1956, the Federal Trade Commission has persistently requested the Congress to enact legislation giving the Commission itself the power to enjoin, or alternatively, to seek a district court order to enjoin mergers pending the outcome of the…”
United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963).
· cites it 4× “§ 4 , and § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 25 , to enjoin a proposed merger of The Philadelphia National Bank (PNB) and Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank (Girard), appellees here.”
United States v. Oracle Corp., 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 USC § 25 and 28 USC §§ 1331 , 1337(a) and 1345.”
United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953).
· cites it 2× “736 , 15 U. S. C. § 25 . And the cases have spoken of Congress' design to provide a scheme of dual enforcement for the Clayton Act.”
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962).
· cites it 2× “" The complaint sought injunctive relief under § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 25 , to restrain consummation of the merger.”
California v. Am. Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990).
· cites it 2× “" 15 U. S. C. § 25 . [6] The section provides in pertinent part: "Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a…”
Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Our conclusion is fortified by comparing the language Congress utilized in granting the government the power to obtain equitable relief, § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25 , to that used in § 16. Section 15 vests the government with the power “to institute proceedings in…”
California v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 369 U.S. 482 (1962).
· cites it 2× “Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 25 , grants jurisdiction to the United States District Courts "to prevent and restrain violations" of the Clayton Act, and empowers the United States Attorneys "to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such…”
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.