Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory
Did you mean Sherman?
Your query sherman returned 24 results.
![]() |
POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws. |
![]() |
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A. [Syllabus] (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)? |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) [Syllabus] |
![]() |
BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus] |
![]() |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus] |
![]() |
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights. |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
WEYERHAEUSER CO. V. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOODLUMBER CO. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |
![]() |
WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] |
![]() |
[Syllabus] |









