15 U.S.C. § 28
Repealed. Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(11), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1932–2022 · leading case: Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151 (1972).
Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151 (1972). “The Expediting Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 28 , 29, involved in the present case, does not contribute materially to our caseload.”
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). “198 , 199, 15 U.S.C. § 28 . [3] Before trial, negotiations for a settlement were undertaken.”
Cascade Nat. Gas Corp. v. El Paso Nat. Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 (1967). “514, 518 , the Court stated: "The private-injunction action, like the treble-damage action under § 4 of the Act, supplements government enforcement of the antitrust laws; but it is the Attorney General and the United States district attorneys who are primarily charged by…”
United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (1961). “823 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 28 (no such certificate was filed in this case), and by providing for direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decree of the trial court, whether composed of one or several judges, such appeal to be within this Court's obligatory jurisdiction.”
United States v. Nat'l City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573 (1948). “[36] Congress has provided that the trial of these actions may, upon request of the Attorney General, "be given precedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assigned for hearing at the earliest practicable day.”
Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605 (D. Del. 1959). “823 , 15 U. S.C.A. §§ 28, 29) the three-judge court has been made applicable to several situations.”
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76 (1951). “After the United States concluded its evidence in chief at the trial, a three-judge District Court, 15 U. S. C. § 28 , granted appellees’ motion to dismiss under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro *81 cedure on the ground that no right to relief had been shown.”
Columbia Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Am. Fuel & Power Co., 322 U.S. 379 (1944). “…from the district court to this Court in International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U. S. 131 . By 15 U. S. C. § 28 , derived from § 1 of the Expediting Act of 1903, it was provided that in any suit in equity brought in any district court of the United…”
Fisons Ltd. & Fisons Pharm. Ltd. v. United States of Am., Respondent-Plaintiff, 458 F.2d 1241 (7th Cir. 1972). “” That procedure, though still authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 28 , was not used in this case and has been employed rarely, if at all, in recent years.”
Julius Nasso Concrete Corp. v. DIC Concrete Corp., 467 F. Supp. 1016 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “§ 15 , injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 28 , and an order of divestiture.”
Ferguson-Steere Motor Co. v. United States, 126 F. Supp. 588 (N.D. Tex. 1954). “823 , 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 28 , 29 and notes for suits by the United States to enforce the antitrust and commerce laws.”
United States v. Crocker-Anglo Nat'l Bank, 277 F. Supp. 133 (N.D. Cal. 1967). “A certificate under the Expediting Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 28 ) was filed and pursuant thereto a three judge court was named and assembled for the purpose of hearing the cause.”
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.