Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Federal Procedure-Venue-Applicability Of Section 1404(A) Of New Title 28 To Anti-Trust Suits, Morris G. Shanker S. Ed. Dec 1951

Federal Procedure-Venue-Applicability Of Section 1404(A) Of New Title 28 To Anti-Trust Suits, Morris G. Shanker S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Working directly from a branch office in Washington, D.C., defendant corporation solicited orders and distributed films in the state of Virginia, although it had not registered as a foreign corporation in that state. Alleging that the defendant had violated the anti-trust laws by its activities in Virginia, plaintiff brought a civil action for damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pursuant to section 14O4(a) of Title 28 U.S.C. defendant moved to transfer the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Held, since the defendant was not transacting …


Federal Procedure-Venue-Transfer Under Section 1404(A) To District Where Venue Originally Would Have Been Improper, Wilber M. Brucker, Jr. S. Ed. Dec 1951

Federal Procedure-Venue-Transfer Under Section 1404(A) To District Where Venue Originally Would Have Been Improper, Wilber M. Brucker, Jr. S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Civil anti-trust actions were properly brought against defendants in the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware. Defendants sought a transfer of the suits to a district court in Texas under section 1404(a) of the Judicial Code, which allows a transfer when requirements of convenience are met to any district where the suit "might have been brought" Although venue in the Texas District Court would not have been proper when the suits were originally instituted, defendants claimed that their express waiver of improper venue removed the bar to transfer. The district court ruled that it lacked the power to …


Regulation Of Business-Robinson-Patman Act-Defense Of Meeting A Competitor's Price, Willis B. Snell S. Ed. Apr 1951

Regulation Of Business-Robinson-Patman Act-Defense Of Meeting A Competitor's Price, Willis B. Snell S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Standard Oil sold gasoline to "jobber" customers at a price lower than that at which it sold to other customers in the area. The price differentials were not justified by lower costs. The jobbers made both wholesale and retail sales of the gasoline; some of them passed on the reduced prices by sales at less than the prevailing rates in the area. The F.T.C. held that Standard's price differential violated section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Standard contended that the differential was established in good faith to meet an equally low price of a …


Regulation Of Business-Robinson-Patman Act-Defense Of Meeting A Competitor's Price, Willis B. Snell S. Ed. Apr 1951

Regulation Of Business-Robinson-Patman Act-Defense Of Meeting A Competitor's Price, Willis B. Snell S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Standard Oil sold gasoline to "jobber" customers at a price lower than that at which it sold to other customers in the area. The price differentials were not justified by lower costs. The jobbers made both wholesale and retail sales of the gasoline; some of them passed on the reduced prices by sales at less than the prevailing rates in the area. The F.T.C. held that Standard's price differential violated section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Standard contended that the differential was established in good faith to meet an equally low price of a …


Administrative Law-Federal Trade Commission-Constitutional And Statutory Authority To Order Additional Compliance Reports, Charles Myneder S. Ed. Jan 1951

Administrative Law-Federal Trade Commission-Constitutional And Statutory Authority To Order Additional Compliance Reports, Charles Myneder S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Proceeding under section 5 of its organic act, the Federal Trade Commission issued an order requiring defendants to cease and desist from engaging in certain trade practices. The court of appeals, in its decree affirming the order, directed compliance reports to be filed with the commission within a specified time, reserving jurisdiction to enter further orders. Four years after the compliance reports were filed, the commission, on its own motion, ordered additional reports to show continued compliance. Defendants refused to report, challenging the authority of the commission to issue the order. The district court dismissed suit by the commission for …