15 U.S.C. § 51
Effect on other statutory provisions
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent or interfere with the enforcement of the provisions of the antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce, nor shall anything contained in this subchapter be construed to alter, modify, or repeal the said antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce or any part or parts thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1930–2008 · leading case: Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 202 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2001).
Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 202 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2001). “15 U.S.C. § 51 . As the FTC points out, it is not unusual for Congress to provide different causes of action to different plaintiffs for the same unlawful acts.”
Munns v. CSX Transp., Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ohio 2008). “” 15 U.S.C. § 51 . To recover damages under the FELA, the plaintiffs injury must occur while acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the employer’s interstate business.”
Jerry Shrader, Etc., Appellants/cross-Appellees v. A. W. Horton, Jr., Etc., Appellees/cross-Appellants, 626 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1980). “All such connections shall be made in accordance with rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the authority, which rules and regulations may provide for a charge for making any such connection in such reasonable amount as the authority may fix and…”
Dothan Oil Mill Co. v. Espy, 127 So. 178 (Ala. 1930). “” 15 USCA § 51. We are not of opinion, however, that the business of buying cotton seed, confined wholly to the state, to be crushed and manufactured into oil and other products, in such state, constitutes interstate commerce, within the scope and purpose of said act or within…”
Atlanta Brick Co. v. O'NEAL, 44 F. Supp. 39 (E.D. Tex. 1942). “” 15 U.S.C.A. § 51 . (Meaning the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, etc.”
Petition of Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 235 F. Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). “V, 1964) 5 because this duplication “would be held to be unreasonable if contained in a subpena duces tecum *688 issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation * * 6 The government argued, on the other hand, that conduct which violates § 5 of the…”
United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 205 F. Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). “The Federal Trade Commission is regulatory in nature; the Sherman Act is penal as well as civil; the consequences flowing from each Act are quite dissimilar.”
United States v. Cement Inst., 85 F. Supp. 344 (D. Colo. 1949). “§ 44 , and § 11 of the Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 51 . We therefore conclude that the Attorney General was acting within his authority when he directed the filing of the complaint pending in this court.”
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.