Chesapeake & O. Fuel Co. v. United States
Citations
- 115 F. 610
- 13 Ohio F. Dec. 763
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4233
Syllabus
<p>1. Monopolies — Anti-Trust Act — Contracts in Restraint of Interstate Commerce.</p> <p>By the anti-trust act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 209), congress has, in the exercise of the power delegated to it by the constitution, declared all contracts and combinations illegal, if in restraint of trade or commerce among the states; and such act does not leave to the courts the consideration of the question whether the restraint is or is not unreasonable, and such as would have rendered the contract invalid at common-law. The only question in each case where the validity of a contract or combination under the law is involved is whether or not its necessary effect is to restrain interstate commerce.</p> <p>2. Same — Contracts Affecting Interstate Commerce.</p> <p>A contract by which a corporation agrees to take the entire product of a number of independent persons, firms, and corporations engaged, in mining coal and making coke in a certain district, which is intended for “Western shipment” over a leading route of transportation, to sell the same at not less than a minimum price, to be fixed by an executive committee appointed by the producers, and to account for and pay over to such producers the entire proceeds, above a fixed sum per ton to be retained as “compensation,” — the stated purpose being to “enlarge the-Western market,” — and under which the shipments are made into other states, is one affecting interstate commerce, and is subject to the provisions of the anti-trust law.</p> <p>& Same — Combinations in Restraint of Trade.</p> <p>By a contract between a fuel company and an association composed of 14 persons, firms, and corporations independently engaged in producing coal and coke in a certain district on a line of a railroad, the company was to handle for a term of years the entire output of the members of the association intended for the Western market, and shipped over such line of railroad, and bound itself not to sell the product of any competing mines. A min
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- setting for standards for determining whether material is subject to striking under Rule 12(f)
- Defendants “will have ample opportunity after discovery to show that these allegations are baseless or irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.”
- allegations that are “part of the public record and generally available detract[s] from any potential prejudice”
- “the fact that a [pleading] may be overly narrative or contain generalized statements or matters of opinion is not in and of itself grounds to strike portions of the [pleading] absent a showing that the allegations are either irrelevant or unsupported”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.