Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellant, v. Fmc Corporation and American Viscose Corporation, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 321 F.2d 534
July 30, 1963
William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Wright, Robert B. Hummel, Lionel Kestenbaum, Joel E. Hoffman, Lewis Bernstein, Nicolaus Bruns, Jr., and Carl D. Lobell, Attys., Anti-Trust Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C.; Lyle L. Jones, Atty., Anti-Trust Div., Dept. of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Francis R. Kirkham and William E. Mussman, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee FMC Corp.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Whitney North Seymour and William J. Manning, New York City, for appellee American Viscose Corp.
Before HAMLEY and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges and MATHES, District Judge.
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal, purportedly taken under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), from an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction. The action was brought by the United States under section 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 25) to enjoin the acquisition by one of the appellees of the "operating assets" of the other, as being in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18). On June 27, 1963, this court granted a stay, pending appeal.
We are of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction of this appeal, by reason of the provisions of the Expediting Act of 1903 (C. 544, 32 Stat. 823) now 15 U.S. C. § 29. See: United States v. California Cooperative Canneries, 1929, 279 U. S. 553, 558, 49 S.Ct. 423, 73 L.Ed. 838; Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 1944, 322 U.S. 137, 142, 64 S.Ct. 905, 88 L.Ed. 1188; United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 196, 201-202, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554; De Beers Mines v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 212, 217, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 89 L.Ed. 1566; Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 1962, 370 U.S. 294, 305, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed. 2d 510; Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 3 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 614, 615; National Ass'n. of Real Estate Boards v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 176 F.2d 631; United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 2 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 90. We are unable to agree with the contrary decision of the Third Circuit in United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 1963, 320 F.2d 509 (June 5, 1963).
The stay granted by the order of June 27, 1963, is dissolved. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.