U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 123— PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES

15 U.S.C. § 3

JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Right of Action.—A petition for review challenging this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.“(b)Exclusive Jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this division or any action, finding, or determination under this division.“(c)Statute of Limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—“(1) in the case of a challenge to this division, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this division [Apr. 24, 2024]; and“(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this division, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1929–2025 · leading case: Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182 (3rd Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “2d 580 (1961), which defined the relevant geographic area for § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3 , as "the market area in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies" or as the area in which suppliers "effectively compete.”
United States v. Maldonado-Burgos, 844 F.3d 339 (1st Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The Sherman Act treats territories differently- than states: section 3 of that Act reaches agreements “in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States,” 15 U.S.C. § 3 (a); however, the' Act’s reach is less expansive when it comes to the states, covering…”
United States v. Nat'l Ass'n of Real Est. Boards, 339 U.S. 485 (1950). · cites it 2× “209 , 15 U. S. C. § 3 . [2] The core of the case is the charge that the members of the Washington Real Estate Board combined and conspired to fix the commission rates for their services when acting as brokers in the sale, exchange, lease and management of real property in the…”
Stand. Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976). “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 3 . 362 F. Supp. 1331 (1973).”
Tracy v. Superior Court, 810 P.2d 1030 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 2× “" 15 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). [6] That the term territory must be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of the act in question is also apparent from Supreme Court opinions dealing with the District of Columbia.”
Marjorie Webster Junior Coll., Inc., a Corp. v. Middle States Ass'n of Colleges & Secondardy Schs., Inc., a Corp., 432 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “Middle States lias never accredited or evaluated a proprietary institution of higher education.”
James McCoy (Yazoo) Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., a Maryland Corp., A/K/A Washington Redskins & the Nat'l Football League, (Two Cases), 593 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “Sherman Act § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 3 (1976) provides in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia .”
Smithkline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3rd Cir. 1978). “15 U.S.C. § 3 , as amended, provides: Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory…”
Home Orthopedics Corp. v. Rodriguez, 781 F.3d 521 (1st Cir. 2015). “The complaint also brought causes of actions for violations of: The Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 3 ); The Hobbs Act ( 18 U.S.C.”
Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Sherman Act § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 3 (Supp. V 1975) provides in pertinent part: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia .”
Black Diamond Land Mgmt. LLC v. Twin Pines Coal Inc., 707 F. App'x 576 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “” 15 U.S.C. § 3 provides: Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and…”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Martino, 255 F. Supp. 2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “” 15 U.S.C. § 3 (a)(38); see also Sullivan & Long, Inc.”
Show all 96 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.