15 U.S.C. § 30
Repealed. Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title IV, § 14102(f), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1922
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1958–2010 · leading case: United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958).
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958). “731 , 15 U. S. C. § 30 . We cannot condemn the Government for any such practice in this case.”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “” 15 U.S.C. § 30 . Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in such an antitrust case, appeals the district court’s order requiring the depositions in this case to be taken in public, subject to provisions for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential business…”
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). “731 , 15 U. S. C. §30 . 24 The purpose of that Act plainly was to enable victims of antitrust violations to make evidentiary use of information developed in a public enforcement proceeding.”
Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co., 654 P.2d 673 (Wash. 1982). “.. the proceedings shall be open to the public as freely as are trials in open court; and no order excluding the public from attendance on any such proceedings shall be valid or enforceable.”
United States v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 67 F.R.D. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “These depositions are governed by the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act, 15 U.S.C. § 30 (1970), which mandates that depositions taken in a suit in equity brought by the United States under 15 U.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981). “Judge Edelstein was confronted with a request that disclosure be limited in the face of the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act, 15 U.S.C. § 30 (1970), which mandated that depositions taken in a suit brought by the United States under the antitrust laws be open to the public.”
TIMES NEWS. LTD.(GR. BRIT.) v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 387 F. Supp. 189 (C.D. Cal. 1974). “” The United Shoe Machinery case led to the adoption in 1913 of 15 U.S.C. § 30 which is applicable only to antitrust suits brought by the United States.”
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 461 F. Supp. 1314 (D.D.C. 1978). “Further, defendants’ contention that the Publicity in the Taking of Evidence Act, 15 U.S.C. § 30 , will somehow hamper the Court’s ability to provide protection for privileged documents is unfounded.”
In Re December 1974 Term Grand Jury Investigation, 449 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1978). “731 , 15 U.S.C. § 30 . We cannot condemn the Government for any such practice in this case.”
Commonwealth v. Selenski, 996 A.2d 494 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “Microsoft, supra , namely, the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act of 1913, 15 U.S.C. § 30 , was subsequently repealed by Congress effective November 2, 2002.”
United States v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 62 F.R.D. 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). “1 This request is wholly inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the Publicity in Taking Evidence Act, 15 U.S.C. § 30 (1970). Consequently, Mathematica’s application for a protective order is denied.”
Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 145 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1992). “This specific statutory provision, the Court concluded, was intended to exempt only these antitrust actions from the implicit assumption in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a “deposition is not a trial, and the rights of the press are not .”
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.