U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 4

Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

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

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 359 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Publ'g Co., 852 N.E.2d 825 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Publ'g Co., 852 N.E.2d 825 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 2× “In fact, enforcement of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act is left to the United States Attorney (see 15 U.S.C. § 4 (2000)), and there is no indication in the record that such proceedings against the plaintiffs were ever contemplated.”
George Hengle v. Sherry Treppa, 19 F.4th 324 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “Like Section 1964(a), the introductory clause of Section 4 of the Sherman Act (currently codified at 15 U.S.C. § 4 ) grants district courts authority to “prevent and restrain” violations of the Act.”
Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “by the federal government to enforce or prevent a substantive violation of the Sherman Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 4”; hence, the words “gives rise to a claim” mean that the conduct’s domestic effect “only must violate the substantive provisions of the Sherman Act.”
SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Appellant, v. IMREX Co., INC., Gidon Armon & Jacob Armon, Appellees, 741 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “Section 4 provides as follows: [quoting 15 U.S.C. § 4 ]. House Hearings, supra note 9, at 543-44.”
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958). · cites it 2× “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 4 , to enjoin alleged violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Act.”
Cascade Nat. Gas Corp. v. El Paso Nat. Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 (1967). · cites it 3× “" 15 U. S. C. §§ 4 and 25. That statutory command is violated when private parties are allowed to intervene and control public suits.”
United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963). · cites it 2× “The United States, appellant here, brought this civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under § 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 4 , and § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968). · cites it 2× “209 , 15 U. S. C. § 4 . United Shoe Machinery Corp.”
Times-Picayune Publ'g Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953). · cites it 2× “" 15 U. S. C. § 4 . The complaint named as defendants the Times-Picayune Publishing Company and four of its officers.”
United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972). · cites it 2× “Jurisdiction was grounded in § 4 of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 4 . Following a trial on the merits, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment for Topco, 319 F.”
California v. Am. Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990). · cites it 2× “" 15 U. S. C. § 26 . [7] That the two provisions do differ is not surprising at all, since § 15 was largely copied from § 4 of the Sherman Act, see 26 Stat.”
Far East Conf. v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952). · cites it 2× “209 , 15 U. S. C. § 4 . [2] Section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1916 created the Shipping Board.”
Show all 359 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.