U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2— FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; PROMOTION OF EXPORT TRADE AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— PREVENTION OF UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION

15 U.S.C. § 72

Repealed. Pub. L. 108–429, title II, § 2006(a), Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2597

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases, 1935–2008 · leading case: Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 9× “15 U.S.C. § 72 (emphasis added). From this juxtaposition alone, the defendants contend that the 1916 Act contemplates a comparison of the price of identical articles sold in the U.”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “798 , 15 U. S. C. § 72 . 13. Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 513 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981). · cites it 4× “Additionally, they allege that the defendants have violated § 801 of the Revenue Act of 1916, better known as the 1916 Antidumping Act, 15 U.S.C. § 72 , by “commonly and systematically,” with predatory intent, selling their products in this country for substantially less than…”
Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Man Roland Druckmaschinen Aktiengesellschaft, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Iowa 2001). · cites it 6× “This action involves allegations of illegal dumping brought pursuant to the Anti-dumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (“the 1916 Act”). Presently pending before this Court are the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Goss Graphic Systems, Inc.”
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). “§ 2305 (c); see also 15 U. S. C. §72 (same), or only by “competitors, customers, or subsequent purchasers,” § 298(b).”
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (S.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 8× “, the Antidumping Act, 15 U.S.C. § 72 . Under the United States Constitution, only Congress and the President may regulate international trade.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1161 (E.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 4× “Additionally, they allege that the Japanese defendants have violated § 801 of the Revenue Act of 1916, better known as the 1916 Antidumping Act, 15 U.S.C. § 72 , by “commonly and systematically,” with predatory intent, selling their products in this country for substantially…”
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 35 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 14× “15 U.S.C. § 72 . The statute, in its essence and by its own terms, prohibits the systematic importing of articles of commerce into the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price in the principal market of the country in which such…”
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F. Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1978). · cites it 4× “§ 8 , and the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 , OMC has named as defendants, Pezetel Foreign Trade Enterprise of the Aviation Industry (“Pezetel”), “an agency or instrumentality” created by and responsible to the Peoples Republic of *389 Poland, which exports golf carts…”
United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600 (1941). · cites it 2× “756 , 798, 15 U.S.C. § 72 . [13] Act of October 15, 1914, c.”
In Re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., Zenith Radio Corp. & Nat'l Union Elec. Corp., 807 F.2d 44 (3rd Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Although we dealt with the Sherman Act claims and the claims under the Antidump-ing Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (1982), in two separate opinions, this court entered a single judgment.”
Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985). “§ 15 (1976) (providing for treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs for violation of antitrust laws); 15 U.S.C. § 72 (1976) (providing for treble damages, attorney's fees, and costs for unfair competition in importing trade).”
Show all 68 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.