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

Other cases named Swift & Co. v. United States

28 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.