15 U.S.C. § 8

Trusts in restraint of import trade illegal; penalty

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

Every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations, either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who shall be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States such person shall be fined in a sum not less than $100 and not exceeding $5,000, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 62 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1929–2025 · leading case: Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 513 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 513 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981). · cites it 4× “of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 et seq., § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”

Nelson Bunker Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 550 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “§ 1 , and section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 . A fourth claim alleged damages arising from a breach of contract.”

Lowell Musick & Sharlene Musick v. Gene Burke, Burke Vending & Catering Corp., 913 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “§§ 1 , 2; the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 et seq.; the Clayton Act, 15 U.”

Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 947 P.2d 291 (Cal. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 1 ), the Wilson Tariff Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 8 et seq.), and the Clayton Act ( 15 U.”

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1161 (E.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 3× “…is alleged to violate §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and § 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 . Plaintiffs also allege actual and attempted monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act. Additionally, they allege that the Japanese defendants…”

United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600 (1941). · cites it 2× “667 ; 15 U.S.C. § 8 . [11] 28 Stat. 570 , 37 Stat.”

Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F. Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1978). · cites it 3× “§§ 1 , 2, violations of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 , and the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.”

Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States of Am., 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “§ 13 (1988), the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 (1988), and the Sherman Act, 15 U.”

Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC Home Elec. (U.S.A.), Inc., 671 F. Supp. 1525 (C.D. Cal. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 2 ; (4) violation of Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894, 15 U.S.C. § 8 ; (5) violation of the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions Code §§ 16720, 16722, 16726, 16727, 16750; (6) unfair competition; (7) interference with contractual relations; (8)…”

Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp., 719 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983). “§ 1119 (1976); violation of section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8 (1976); and violation of section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.”

De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945). “570 as amended 15 U. S. C. § 8 . 4 See In re Chetwood, 165 U.”

United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “§ 630 Embezzlement, fraud, or false entries by banking officer 2 years 15 U.S.C. § 8 Trust in l’estraint of import trade 3 months 15 U.”

Show all 62 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.