Cases by Issue - Mergers

California v. American Stores Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-258

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Stores Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 271 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1990

Advocates

H. Chester Horn, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort Of Colorado, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-473

Petitioner

Cargill, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Monfort Of Colorado, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 104 (1986)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1986

Advocates

Ronald G. Carr (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Louis R. Cohen (for the United States and Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, in support of Petitioners)

William C. McClearn (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cargill, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Federal Reserve System

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-363

Petitioner

Northeast Bancorp, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Reserve System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1985

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents Bank of New England Corp. et al)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the federal respondent)

Facts of the Case

Certain bank holding companies located principally in either Connecticut or Massachusetts applied to the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to obtain approval for acquisitions of banks or bank holding companies (banks) in the other state. If a bank from one state seeks to acquire a bank, or substantially all of a bank's assets, from another state, the Douglas Amendment to the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), 12 U.S.C. Section 1842(d), allows the Board to approve the acquisition only if it "is specifically authorized by the statute laws of the State in which such [acquired] bank is located." Massachusetts and Connecticut have substantially similar laws allowing out-of-state banks to buy in-state banks only if the out-of-state banks (1) have their principal place of business in another New England State, and (2) the other New England State accords equivalent reciprocal privileges. Certain banks from outside of New England opposed the acquisitions, but the Board found that the Douglas Amendment did not prevent their authorization, and approved them.

Question

Does the Douglas Amendment permit states to allow banks only from certain other states to buy in-state banks, and, if so, do such state laws violate the Commerce, the Compact, or the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Federal Reserve System, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1842

Yes to part 1; no to part 2. Though the Douglas Amendment's language does not specifically indicate that a state may partially lift the ban on out-of-state banks acquiring in-state banks, the Amendment's legislative history indicates that Congress intended to allow each state such flexibility. Moreover, the Massachusetts and Connecticut laws favoring out-of-state banks from New England are consistent with the broader purpose underlying the BHCA: to retain local control over banking. As for the constitutionality of these state laws, there is no violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because Congress exercised its commerce power by enacting the BHCA and the Douglas Amendment. There is no violation of the Compact Clause because Massachusetts and Connecticut did not form a compact, and even if they did, they do not pose a threat to federal supremacy. Finally, there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because our country has traditionally favored widely dispersed control of banking, and so the concerns Massachusetts and Connecticut had with preserving the local nature of banking meet the traditional rational basis for judging equal protection claims.

Board Of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-832

Petitioner

Board Of Governors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

First Lincolnwood Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 234 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Board Of Governors, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1842

None

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Collins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1870

Petitioner

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 75-1872

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 46 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, March 2, 1977

Decided

Thursday, June 16, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 80

None

U.S. v. American Bldg. Maint. Industries

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1689

Appellee

American Bldg. Maint. Industries

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 271 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, April 22, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for American Bldg. Maint. Industries, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

U.S. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1933

Appellee

Citizens & Southern National Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 86 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, March 19, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 17, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Citizens & Southern National Bank, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1849

None

United States v. Itt Continental Baking Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1290

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Itt Continental Baking Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 223 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Connecticut National Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-767

Appellee

Connecticut National Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 656 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Marine Bancorporation

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-38

Appellee

Marine Bancorporation

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 602 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Marine Bancorporation, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-402

Appellee

General Dynamics Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 486 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for General Dynamics Corp., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-873

Appellee

Falstaff Brewing Corp.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 526 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. First Nat. Bancorporation

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-703

Petitioner

First Nat. Bancorporation

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 577 (1973)

Argued

October 16-17, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for First Nat. Bancorporation, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-113

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ford Motor Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 562 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, November 18, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Port Of Portland v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-31

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Port Of Portland

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

408 U.S. 811 (1972)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1971

Decided

Thursday, June 29, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Port Of Portland, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. Greater Buffalo Press

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

821

Appellee

Greater Buffalo Press

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 549 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Armour & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

759

Appellee

Armour & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 673 (1971)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1971

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Armour & Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Armour & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

103

Appellee

Armour & Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 268 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, May 5, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

U.S. v. Phillipsburg Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

1093

Appellee

Phillipsburg Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

399 U.S. 350 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Interstate Commerce Commission

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 38

No. 43

No. 44

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 491 (1970)

Argued

October 21-22, 1969

Decided

Monday, February 2, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Interstate Commerce Commission, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

SEC v. New England Elec. System

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

305

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New England Elec. System

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 207 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, January 18, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, March 5, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for SEC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 79

None

United States v. Third Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Third Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 171 (1968)

Argued

Monday, December 11, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1828

None

United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Penn-Olin Chemical Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 308 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1967

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Penn-Central Merger Cases

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

433

Respondent

Penn-Central Merger Cases

Consolidation

No. 778

No. 779

No. 663

No. 831

No. 832

No. 833

No. 834

No. 835

No. 664

No. 830

No. 836

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

389 U.S. 486 (1968)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1967

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Penn-Central Merger Cases, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. First City Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

914

Petitioner

First City Nat. Bank

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 972

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 361 (1967)

Argued

February 20-21, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 1828

None

Ftc v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

342

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Procter & Gamble Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 568 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 13, 1967

Decided

Monday, April 10, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Levin v. Mississippi River Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

352

Petitioner

Levin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mississippi River Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 359

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 162 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, January 19, 1967

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Levin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

Cascade Nat. Gas v. El Paso Nat. Gas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

El Paso Nat. Gas

Respondent

Cascade Nat. Gas

Consolidation

No. 5

No. 24

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 129 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, January 12, 1967

Decided

Monday, February 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cascade Nat. Gas, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

B. & O. Railroad Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

642

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

B. & O. Railroad Co.

Consolidation

No. 680

No. 691

No. 813

No. 814

No. 815

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

386 U.S. 372 (1967)

Argued

January 9-10, 1967

Decided

Monday, March 27, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for B. & O. R. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. Pabst Brewing Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

404

Appellee

Pabst Brewing Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 546 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Ftc v. Dean Foods Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

970

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dean Foods Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 597 (1966)

Argued

Monday, March 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ftc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1651

None

SEC v. New England Electric

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

636

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New England Electric

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 176 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, March 23, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for SEC, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 79

None

United States v. Von's Grocery Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

303

Appellee

Von's Grocery Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 270 (1966)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1966

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Penn-Olin Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

503

Appellee

Penn-Olin Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 158 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 30, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

Split Vote

None

United States v. Continental Can Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

367

Appellee

Continental Can Co.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

378 U.S. 441 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, April 28, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. Alcoa

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

204

Appellee

Alcoa

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 271 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 23, 1964

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

United States v. First Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

First Nat. Bank

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 665 (1964)

Argued

March 4-5, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

United States v. El Paso Gas Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

El Paso Gas Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 651 (1964)

Argued

February 25-26, 1964

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Philadelphia Nat. Bank

Respondent

U.S.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

374 U.S. 321 (1963)

Argued

February 20-21, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Gilbertville Trucking Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 115 (1962)

Argued

Monday, October 15, 1962

Decided

Monday, December 3, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gilbertville Trucking Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

California v. Fed. Power Comm'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

187

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fed. Power Comm'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 482 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 1, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Brown Shoe Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 294 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

Maintenance Employes v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

681

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maintenance Employes

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 169 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, March 28, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 1, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

United States v. Du Pont & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Du Pont & Co.

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 316 (1961)

Argued

February 20-21, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Milk Producers Assn. v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Respondent

Milk Producers Assn.

Consolidation

No. 73

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 458 (1960)

Argued

January 19-20, 1960

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 291

None

Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

U.S.

Respondent

Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 27

No. 28

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 173 (1959)

Argued

November 16-17, 1959

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Interstate Commerce, as amended

None

International Boxing Club v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

International Boxing Club

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

358 U.S. 242 (1959)

Argued

Thursday, November 13, 1958

Decided

Monday, January 12, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None