25 Cited authorities

Heckler v. Chaney
470 U.S. 821 (1985) Cited 2,038 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
429 U.S. 477 (1977) Cited 2,063 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.
467 U.S. 752 (1984) Cited 1,434 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"
United States v. Armour Co.
402 U.S. 673 (1971) Cited 641 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that consent decree must be enforced as written, and enforcing defendant's waiver of right to litigate particular issue
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 513 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief
Glidden Company v. Zdanok
370 U.S. 530 (1962) Cited 445 times
Holding that, even when judges of a federal court were not "invested upon confirmation with Article III tenure and compensation," 370 U.S. at 538, 82 S.Ct. at 1466, they may become so invested "depend(ing) upon the constitutional status of the courts to which they were primarily appointed." Id. at 541, 82 S.Ct. at 1468
Maryland v. United States
460 U.S. 1001 (1983) Cited 213 times
Approving consent decree that set in train lengthy judicial oversight of divestiture of telephone monopoly
United States v. Swift Co.
286 U.S. 106 (1932) Cited 1,002 times
Holding that a court may modify a final or permanent injunction only after a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions
United States v. Hutcheson
312 U.S. 219 (1941) Cited 381 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdictional dispute between two unions is a labor dispute
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983) Cited 278 times
Approving consent decree
Section 16 - Judgments
15 U.S.C. § 16 Cited 711 times 11 Legal Analyses
Tolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"

United States of America v. SBC Communications Inc. et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding that a statute did not provide meaningful standards because it did not "speak to the criteria which shall be used by the agency for investigating possible violations of the [statute]"

Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

Holding that consent decree must be enforced as written, and enforcing defendant's waiver of right to litigate particular issue

Holding that district courts are not required to conduct evidentiary hearings prior to issuing relief in civil cases when "there are no disputed factual issues regarding the matter of relief

Approving consent decree that set in train lengthy judicial oversight of divestiture of telephone monopoly

Holding that a court may modify a final or permanent injunction only after a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions

Holding that jurisdictional dispute between two unions is a labor dispute

Approving consent decree

Tolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"