The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 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 petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations 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
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. Timothy McKenna, 948 F.3d 105 (3rd Cir. 2020).
“§§ 4 , 5 (Sherman Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 9 , 10 (Wilson Tariff Act). The Fourth Circuit appropriately turned to Justice Jackson’s summary of the antitrust statutory scheme in which he explained that, before “‘other parties’” may be properly served, “‘it must be made to appear to the…”
Fry v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 355 F. Supp. 1151 (N.D. Tex. 1973).
“§§ 1 , 2, 4, and 7, as well as 15 U. S.C. §§ 9, 10, 13, 13a, 14, and 15.”
Grace Co. v. Williams, 20 F. Supp. 263 (W.D. Mo. 1937).
“The petition seeks to enjoin a conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce and consequently there is jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 9 [section 4] as well as under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Judicial Code [28 U.”
Elfenbein v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc., 454 F. Supp. 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
“§ 4 ; Section 2 of the Gorman-Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9 , and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Gray Line, Inc. v. Gray Line Sightseeing Companies Associated, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 495 (N.D. Cal. 1965).
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 9 , 22. The record is clear that the business of the Association is nationwide and that the sightseeing business in which *499 defendants are engaged…”
United States v. Lockhart, 33 F.2d 597 (D. Neb. 1929).
“Code, § 9 [15 USCA § 9]) authorized suits by the United States to restrain the commission of the acts which had been declared crimes by the preceding section.”
Drazdik v. Kao Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2020).
“Plaintiff’s response states: In remedy the original complaint use of defendants’ legal names for immediate cause when issue of expert opinion necessary to comprehend the property in question by subpoena process, 15 U.S.C. § 9 , to the indispensable party the Kao Corporation has…”
Bearden v. Ballad Health (E.D. Tenn. 2019).
“) The complaint, however, fails to state the nature of the alleged injury beyond asserting a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 9 . It is insufficient to claim injury based solely on the existence of a statutory violation; there must be an allegation of harm as a result of the violation.”
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.