Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 3/19/1928

Swift & Co. v. United States

Citations

  • 276 U.S. 311
  • 48 S. Ct. 311
  • 72 L. Ed. 587
  • 1928 U.S. LEXIS 83

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • referring to \divestiture of the instrumentalities\ in a case raising both Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims
  • federal court had jurisdiction to enjoin even intrastate commerce where (1) court issued injunction pursuant to parties’ settlement of case and (2
  • “[E]ight reasons are relied on as showing that, in whole or in part, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”
  • “On a motion to vacate, the determination . . . that a case or controversy existed is not open to attack.”
  • order confirming plan would not be set aside even if contained error of law where order was neither void nor a mistake, and there was no allegation of fraud
  • “[A] suit for an injunction deals primarily, not with past violations, but with threatened future ones[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brandéis, Sutherland, Stone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.