From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. U.S.

U.S.
May 17, 1954
347 U.S. 521 (1954)

Summary

finding that injunctive relief modifying the monopolist's leases with other manufacturers was appropriate even though a substantial majority of manufacturers expressed a preference for leasing

Summary of this case from ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 394.

Argued April 26-27, 1954. Decided May 17, 1954.

The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings of the District Court are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.

110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed.

John L. Hall, Robert Proctor and Claude R. Branch argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Walter Powers, John B. Reigeluth and Conrad W. Oberdorfer.

Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Marvin E. Frankel, Margaret H. Brass and C. Worth Rowley.


The case having been fully argued and the Court being satisfied that the findings are justified by the evidence and support the decree, the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE CLARK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. U.S.

U.S.
May 17, 1954
347 U.S. 521 (1954)

finding that injunctive relief modifying the monopolist's leases with other manufacturers was appropriate even though a substantial majority of manufacturers expressed a preference for leasing

Summary of this case from ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC

approving five-year lease terms

Summary of this case from Ilc Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
Case details for

United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. v . UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 17, 1954

Citations

347 U.S. 521 (1954)
74 S. Ct. 699

Citing Cases

Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

Hanover Shoe, Inc. (hereafter Hanover) is a manufacturer of shoes and a customer of United Shoe Machinery…

Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

If this is sound law, defendant should indeed be relieved of the verdict with respect to 110 camera damages.…