Kennecott Copper Corp. v. United States
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1976)
- Consol. Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1987)
- United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (6th Cir. 1970)
- Fruehauf Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (2d Cir. 1979)
- International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1978)
- United States v. Blue Bell, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1975)
- Mississippi River Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (8th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Sybron Corporation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
- United Nuclear Corp. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1969)
- United States v. Kennecott Copper Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP.
v.
UNITED STATES.
Supreme Court of United States.
Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman for appellant.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerome S. Wagshal and Donald L. Hardison for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294 and United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U. S. 271.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, dissenting.
We would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument. In so voting, we indicate no opinion on the merits. Under the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29 (1964 ed.), this is appellant's first and only appeal. So long as this statute remains on the books and Congress provides no intermediate review, see United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U. S. 174, 175, it is our view that the policy of the Act is, in general, best served by plenary rather than summary dispositions of such appeals. Ibid. Of course, if the question presented by an appeal is plainly insubstantial or directly governed by a controlling decision of this Court, summary disposition would still be appropriate. Since we do not believe that this can be said of this case, we would give plenary consideration to this appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.