grant
argued
april
decided
may
clayton
act
sued
federal
district
enjoin
individual
six
corporations
violating
holding
individual
interlocking
directorates
three
pairs
competing
corporations
thereafter
individual
resigned
directorship
one
pair
corporations
filed
affidavits
disclaiming
intention
resuming
directorates
motion
defendants
granted
summary
judgment
dismissing
suit
held
power
federal
trade
commission
enforce
exclusive
jurisdiction
entertain
suit
pp
termination
interlocking
directorates
render
case
moot
pp
abuse
discretion
refusing
grant
injunctive
relief
pp
district
dismissed
government
suit
enjoin
violations
clayton
act
supp
direct
appeal
affirmed
victor
kramer
argued
cause
brief
acting
solicitor
general
stern
acting
assistant
attorney
general
hodges
daniel
friedman
eustace
seligman
argued
cause
hancock
et
appellees
brief
howard
milman
abe
fortas
argued
cause
kroger
company
appellee
brief
norman
diamond
samuel
silverman
statement
opposing
jurisdiction
motion
dismiss
affirm
harry
wiggins
harman
hawkins
submitted
brief
kress
appellee
justice
clark
delivered
opinion
first
time
since
enactment
clayton
act
called
upon
consider
prohibitions
interlocking
corporate
directorates
government
appeals
judgments
dismissing
civil
actions
brought
hancock
three
pairs
corporations
served
director
grant
kress
sears
roebuck
bond
stores
kroger
jewel
tea
inc
alleging
size
competitive
relationship
set
companies
brought
interlocks
within
reach
complaints
asked
order
particular
interlocks
terminated
enjoin
future
violations
individual
corporate
defendants
soon
complaints
filed
hancock
resigned
boards
kress
kroger
bond
disclosing
resignations
affidavit
defendants
moved
dismiss
actions
moot
treated
motions
summary
judgment
granted
district
judge
concluded
slightest
threat
defendants
attempt
future
activity
violation
section
violated
already
supp
government
brought
direct
appeal
expediting
act
stat
amended
stat
supp
contending
cases
rendered
moot
hancock
resignations
abuse
discretion
trial
refuse
injunctive
relief
appellees
suggest
without
arguing
point
extenso
judgment
affirmed
clayton
act
vests
exclusive
enforcement
powers
federal
trade
commission
section
authorize
commission
enforce
inference
administrative
jurisdiction
intended
exclusive
falls
plain
words
several
district
courts
hereby
invested
jurisdiction
prevent
restrain
violations
act
stat
cases
spoken
congress
design
provide
scheme
dual
enforcement
clayton
act
alkali
export
assn
standard
oil
note
appellees
failure
press
point
denotes
merits
district
properly
entertained
suits
sides
agree
abstract
proposition
voluntary
cessation
allegedly
illegal
conduct
deprive
tribunal
power
hear
determine
case
make
case
moot
freight
walling
helmerich
payne
hecht
bowles
controversy
may
remain
settled
circumstances
aluminum
america
dispute
legality
challenged
practices
walling
helmerich
payne
supra
carpenters
union
labor
board
defendant
free
return
old
ways
together
public
interest
legality
practices
settled
militates
mootness
conclusion
freight
supra
say
case
become
moot
means
defendant
entitled
dismissal
matter
right
labor
board
general
motors
courts
rightly
refused
grant
defendants
powerful
weapon
public
law
enforcement
case
may
nevertheless
moot
defendant
demonstrate
reasonable
expectation
wrong
repeated
burden
heavy
one
defendants
told
interlocks
longer
existed
disclaimed
intention
revive
profession
suffice
make
case
moot
although
one
factors
considered
determining
appropriateness
granting
injunction
acts
along
power
hear
case
power
grant
injunctive
relief
survives
discontinuance
illegal
conduct
hecht
bowles
supra
goshen
mfg
myers
mfg
purpose
injunction
prevent
future
violations
swift
course
utilized
even
without
showing
past
wrongs
moving
party
must
satisfy
relief
needed
necessary
determination
exists
cognizable
danger
recurrent
violation
something
mere
possibility
serves
keep
case
alive
chancellor
decision
based
circumstances
discretion
necessarily
broad
strong
showing
abuse
must
made
reverse
considered
bona
fides
expressed
intent
comply
effectiveness
discontinuance
cases
character
past
violations
facts
relied
government
show
abuse
discretion
case
hancock
three
interlocking
directorates
viewed
three
distinct
violations
failure
terminate
suit
filed
despite
five
years
administrative
attempts
persuade
illegality
express
refusal
concede
interlocks
question
illegal
statute
failure
promise
commit
similar
violations
future
sitting
trial
showing
might
persuasive
government
must
demonstrate
reasonable
basis
district
judge
decision
think
fails
individual
proclivity
violate
statute
need
inferred
fact
three
violations
charged
particularly
since
recently
government
attempted
systematic
enforcement
district
dealing
defendant
follows
one
adjudicated
violation
others
material
district
judge
supposed
five
years
administrative
persuasion
easily
support
inference
time
defendant
department
justice
trying
determine
legality
directorships
government
remedy
statute
plain
postponement
suit
indicates
doubt
prosecutor
part
much
intransigence
defendant
much
contrition
expected
defendant
hard
us
say
surely
question
better
addressed
discretion
trial
said
limited
disclaimer
future
intent
assuming
government
corporations
properly
joined
defendants
conclusion
abuse
discretion
refusing
injunctive
relief
hancock
applies
fortiori
case
none
corporations
appeared
engaged
one
alleged
violation
affidavits
filed
motions
dismiss
indicated
defendants
ignorant
government
interest
interlocks
suits
filed
indeed
emphasis
branch
case
placed
refusal
relief
hancock
failure
point
circumstances
compelling
relief
corporations
speaks
essentially
government
claim
deprived
trial
relief
issue
time
objection
raised
procedure
case
handled
course
summary
judgment
procedure
employed
genuine
issue
material
fact
fed
rules
civ
proc
however
defendants
moved
dismiss
government
elected
file
countervailing
affidavits
amend
complaint
stated
oral
argument
truth
defendants
affidavits
questioned
frame
factual
dispute
left
complaint
relevant
paragraph
reads
defendants
threatened
continue
continue
aforesaid
violation
section
clayton
act
unless
relief
prayed
herein
granted
emphasis
added
aforesaid
violation
specific
interlocks
voluntarily
terminated
intention
resume
negatived
oath
prayer
defendants
enjoined
future
violations
complaint
alleged
threatened
violations
specifically
charged
circumstances
district
judge
decide
significant
threat
future
violation
factual
dispute
existence
threat
conclude
although
actions
moot
abuse
discretion
demonstrated
trial
refusal
award
injunctive
relief
moreover
stated
dismissals
bar
new
suit
case
possible
violations
arise
future
judgments
affirmed
footnotes
fed
rules
civ
proc
sec
authority
enforce
compliance
sections
act
persons
respectively
subject
thereto
hereby
vested
federal
trade
commission
applicable
character
commerce
exercised
follows
whenever
commission
shall
reason
believe
person
violating
violated
provisions
sections
act
shall
issue
serve
upon
person
attorney
general
complaint
stating
charges
respect
containing
notice
hearing
upon
hearing
commission
shall
opinion
provisions
said
sections
violated
shall
make
report
writing
shall
state
findings
facts
shall
issue
cause
served
person
order
requiring
person
cease
desist
violations
divest
stock
share
capital
assets
held
rid
directors
chosen
contrary
provisions
sections
act
manner
within
time
fixed
said
order
stat
supp
cf
gesellschaft
defendants
shown
settled
continuing
practice
entered
conspiracy
violative
antitrust
laws
courts
assume
abandoned
without
clear
proof
duty
courts
beware
efforts
defeat
injunctive
relief
protestations
repentance
reform
especially
abandonment
seems
timed
anticipate
suit
probability
resumption
oregon
state
medical
society
aluminum
america
supra
cf
gypsum
review
particular
antitrust
decree
provisions
see
kramer
interlocking
directorships
clayton
act
years
yale
understood
deciding
whether
corporations
violate
reasons
enjoined
statute
justice
douglas
justice
black
concurs
dissenting
monopoly
restraints
trade
sometimes
products
practices
devices
ingenious
minds
men
sometimes
follow
blunt
direct
course
involved
acquisition
assets
competitor
way
growth
monopoly
power
decisions
given
powerful
impetus
encouragement
see
especially
columbia
steel
subtle
interlocking
arrangements
directorates
accomplish
disastrous
consequences
justice
brandeis
pointed
forty
years
ago
interlocking
directorates
companies
compete
stifle
competition
use
words
justice
brandeis
practice
substitutes
pull
privilege
push
manhood
moreover
entwined
relations
stuff
concentration
financial
power
american
industry
built
maintained
justice
brandeis
gave
one
example
bankers
control
railroads
controlling
railroads
able
control
issue
sale
securities
bankers
bought
securities
price
part
fixing
part
fixing
sold
securities
bankers
insurance
companies
able
exercise
control
directors
got
money
buy
securities
railroads
control
great
banking
institutions
capacity
control
railroads
utilized
money
purchase
great
corporations
like
steel
corporation
railroads
needed
capacity
controlling
corporations
bought
steel
corporation
endless
chain
condition
aggravated
interlocking
control
present
case
indirect
hancock
served
director
three
sets
companies
state
pleadings
us
must
assume
competitive
fact
resigned
pressure
proceedings
dispose
case
dealing
professionals
whose
technique
controlling
enterprises
building
empires
fully
developed
well
known
long
justice
brandeis
crying
evils
money
trust
hancock
years
partner
investment
banking
firm
lehman
bros
testified
lehman
financing
company
traditional
practice
ask
representation
board
directors
therefore
seems
district
judge
faced
violations
involved
want
know
first
investment
bankers
built
empires
second
particular
firm
built
empire
third
effect
banker
empires
competition
companies
tied
fact
lehman
partner
resigned
avoid
decision
merits
little
relevancy
issue
case
concerned
proclivity
house
indulge
practice
relevant
issues
never
weighed
case
district
ruling
entitled
presumption
validity
various
factors
considered
district
made
considered
judgment
disposed
case
basis
mootness
ruling
conceded
erroneous
case
go
back
consideration
nature
extent
web
investment
banking
house
woven
industry
effect
elimination
competition
within
meaning
clayton
act
unless
know
much
position
judge
service
injunction
future
violations
may
unless
know
much
position
carry
woodrow
wilson
policy
expressed
clayton
act
interlocking
directorates
prevented
make
affect
compete
fact
partners
masters
whole
field
business
message
joint
session
houses
congress
see
brandeis
endless
chain
harper
weekly
quoted
lief
brandeis
guide
modern
world
see
testimony
hearings
committee
judiciary
trust
legislation
vol
quoted
lief
op
supra
note
hearings
temporary
national
economic
committee
pt
sears
roebuck
supp
decided
april
ruled
congress
intended
nip
bud
incipient
violations
antitrust
laws
removing
opportunity
temptation
violations
interlocking
directorates