...defendants and the defendant companies "had been controlled and operated unreasonably in restraining all trade in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and section 7 of the Clayton Act." Under the preliminary decree permission was granted the various defendants to...

...defendants and the defendant companies "had been controlled and operated unreasonably in restraining all trade in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and swtion 7 of the Clayton Act." Under the preliminary decree permission was granted the various defendants...

...control the prices of gypsum board and have monopolized trade and commerce in the gypsum board industry in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act," is affirmed. The corporate defendants and Samuel M. Gloyd, doing business as Texas Cement Plaster Company,...

...control the prices of gypsum board and have monopolized trade and commerce in the gypsum board industry in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Article IV Each of the license agreements listed in Article II hereof is adjudged unlawful under the...

...aforesaid combination and conspiracy and monopolization be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and of section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act. 2. That the court adjudge and decree that the defendants have...

...aforesaid combination and conspiracy and monopolization be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and of Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act. 2. That the court adjudge and decree that the defendants have...

...aforesaid combination and conspiracy and monopolization be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and of section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act. 2. That the court adjudge and decree that the defendants have...

...aforesaid combination and conspiracy and monopolization be adJndged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and of Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act. 2. That the court adjudge and decree that the defendants have...

...aforesaid combination and conspiracy and monopolization be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and of Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act. 2. That the court adjudge and decree that the defendants have...

...of trade and monopolization in the manufacture and sale of household soaps and synthetic detergents in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case is now on appeal in the Supreme Court from a dismissal by the district court because of the...