15 U.S.C. § 29

Appeals

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

(a) Court of appeals; review by Supreme Court

Except as otherwise expressly provided by this section, in every civil action brought in any district court of the United States under the Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies”, approved July 2, 1890, or any other Acts having like purpose that have been or hereafter may be enacted, in which the United States is the complainant and equitable relief is sought, any appeal from a final judgement entered in any such action shall be taken to the court of appeals pursuant to sections 1291 and 2107 of title 28. Any appeal from an interlocutory order entered in any such action shall be taken to the court of appeals pursuant to sections 1292(a)(1) and 2107 of title 28 but not otherwise. Any judgment entered by the court of appeals in any such action shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon a writ of certiorari as provided in section 1254(1) of title 28.

(b) Direct appeals to Supreme Court

An appeal from a final judgment pursuant to subsection (a) shall lie directly to the Supreme Court, if, upon application of a party filed within fifteen days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice. Such order shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of a notice of appeal. When such an order is filed, the appeal and any cross appeal shall be docketed in the time and manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall thereupon either (1) dispose of the appeal and any cross appeal in the same manner as any other direct appeal authorized by law, or (2) in its discretion, deny the direct appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same as if the appeal and any cross appeal therein had been docketed in the court of appeals in the first instance pursuant to subsection (a).

(Feb. 11, 1903, ch. 544, § 2, 32 Stat. 823; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 9, 1944, ch. 239, 58 Stat. 272; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 17, 62 Stat. 989; Pub. L. 93–528, § 5, Dec. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 1709.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies”, approved July 2, 1890, referred to in subsec. (a), is known as the Sherman Act, and is classified to sections 1 to 7 of this title.

Codification

Section was previously set out in both this section and in section 45 of former Title 49, Transportation.

Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–528 substituted provisions for appeals to the court of appeals from civil actions in district courts where equitable relief is sought, review by the Supreme Court of judgments of courts of appeals, and for direct appeals to the Supreme Court of cases involving general public importance, for provisions that appeals from final judgments of district courts lie to the Supreme Court only.

1948—Act June 25, 1948, amended section generally to strike out provisions relating to time for appeal, procedure, etc. See sections 2101 and 2109 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

1944—Act June 9, 1944, provided for certification of case to circuit court of appeals when there was no quorum of Justices of the Supreme Court qualified to participate in the consideration of the case and for designation of circuit judges in the event of disqualification from hearing the case.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act Mar. 3, 1911, which transferred the powers and duties of the circuit courts to the district courts, substituted “district court” for “circuit court”.

Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Pub. L. 93–528, § 7, Dec. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 1710, provided that: “The amendment made by section 5 of this Act [amending this section] shall not apply to an action in which a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed on or before the fifteenth day following the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 21, 1974]. Appeal in any such action shall be taken pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903 (32 Stat. 823), as amended (15 U.S.C. 29; [former] 49 U.S.C. 45) which were in effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act.”

Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Section 38 of act June 25, 1948, provided that the amendment made by that act is effective Sept. 1, 1948.

Effective Date of 1944 Amendment

Act June 9, 1944, ch. 239, 58 Stat. 272, provided in part: “This Act [this section] shall apply to every case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States on the date of its enactment [June 9, 1944].”

Short Title

Act Feb. 11, 1903, which enacted sections 28 and 29 of this title, is commonly known as the “Expediting Act”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 158 cases, 1939–2015 · leading case: OFS FITEL, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, PC, 549 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

OFS FITEL, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, PC, 549 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “2d 1077 (1958), the United States, in effect, [10] voluntarily dismissed its civil antitrust action against Procter & Gamble in response to an unfavorable interlocutory order and then directly appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court under 15 U.S.C. § 29 .…”

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962). · cites it 6× “823 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 . In a civil antitrust action in which the United States is the complainant that Act provides for a direct appeal to this Court from "the final judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966). · cites it 4× “This course seems to me the more appropriate in light of the fact that because of the Expediting Act, 15 U. S. C. § 29 (1964 ed.), we have not had the benefit of any intermediate appellate sifting of this record.”

United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (1961). · cites it 6× “The Government objected that without a provision ordering complete divestiture the decree, although otherwise satisfactory, was inadequate to redress the antitrust violation, and filed its appeal here under § 2 of the Expediting Act.”

Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979). · cites it 2× “[*] The District Court granted discovery, and the Government deliberately took a default in order to obtain review of the discovery ruling in the course of its appeal from a "final judgment" of the District Court pursuant to 15 U. S. C. § 29 . 356 U. S., at 680 . But absent such…”

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). ““Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is…”

N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958). · cites it 2× “823 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 , and we noted probable jurisdiction.”

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “This court then ordered that any proceedings before it be heard by the court sitting en banc.”

United States v. Nat'l City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573 (1948). · cites it 4× “1167 , 15 U.S.C. § 29 ; 43 Stat. 938 , 28 U.S.C.”

United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958). · cites it 2× “869 , 989, 15 U. S. C. § 29 . We postponed the question of jurisdiction to argument on the merits.”

Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976). “823 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 , and we reversed. It was sufficient for us that the allegations in the complaint, if proved, could show that the conspiracy resulted in “unreasonable burdens on the free and uninterrupted flow of plastering materials into Illinois.”

United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963). · cites it 2× “348 , the United States appealed to this Court under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 15 U. S. C. § 29 . Probable jurisdiction was noted.”

Show all 158 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.