UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY et al., Defendants.
United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 13, 1963.
February 13, 1963.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Stanley E. Disney, Anthony E. Desmond, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Lawler, Felix & Hall, Marcus Mattson, J. Phillip Nevins, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants Armour and Company, Grant M. Farley and Milo B. Medlock.
Faulkner, Sheehan & Wiseman, Harold C. Faulkner, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Corn Products Company and Stan D. Goodman.
McCutchen, Black, Harnagel & Shea, Philip K. Verleger, G. Richard Doty, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants The Cudahy Packing Company and Harold B. Reed.
Overton, Lyman & Prince, Carl J. Schuck, Ernest E. Johnson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants The Glidden Company, George F. Atkinson and R. J. Hauer.
Philip Patterson, Fullerton, Cal., and Ball, Hunt & Hart, Joseph A. Ball, Clark Heggeness, Long Beach, Cal., for defendants Wesson Oil & Snowdrift Sales Co., Pierce L. Brothers and Horace Rowley.
Wm. F. McKenna, Paul Fitting, Los Angeles, Cal., and Arnold, Fortas & Porter, Victor H. Kramer, William L. McGovern, Washington, D. C., for defendant Lever Brothers Company.
O'Melveny & Myers, Warren M. Christopher, Rodney E. Nelson, Los Angeles, Cal., and Covington & Burling, Paul C. Warnke, John W. Douglas, Washington, D. C., for defendants The Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. and Fred L. Onken.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Julian O. Von Kalinowski, John J. Hanson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants Swift & Company, J. D. Fleming and H. B. Paisley.
Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Frank D. MacDowell, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants Vegetable Oil Products Company, Inc., William L. Dickinson and Ray Wear.
J. Edward Simpson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Wilson & Co., Inc.
United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.
CURTIS, District Judge.
The defendants were indicted for conspiracy to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It appears that 18 of the Grand Jurors were present and voted to return the indictment, but the defendants have jointly moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that of those who voted for its return there were not 12 who had been present at all sessions and had heard all of the evidence. This is not a valid ground for dismissal. It is the function of the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
