About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Antitrust Bull. 1 (1972)

handle is hein.journals/antibull17 and id is 1 raw text is: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT SECTION 7 LITIGATION by GRANT S. LEWIS* There is considerable conflict among the district courts as to the burden the government must carry on motions for preliminary injunctions in Section 7 cases. The Expe- diting Act,' however, has generally been construed to pre- vent the courts of appeals from performing their tradi- tional role of resolving these inconsistent district court decisions.2 The likelihood of success or defeat on a motion for a preliminary injunction in a government Section 7 case will depend far more on the philosophy of the judge who happens to hear the motion than on a showing that one comes within an established rule. It is likely that the Ex- pediting Act will be amended in the near future and that, among other things, decisions on motions for preliminary LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York, New York. The author wishes to express his gratitude to H. Richard Wachtel for his guidance and advice. 1 15 U.S.C. §29 (1964). 2 Interlocutory orders of the district courts granting or denying injunctions are reviewable by courts of appeal except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. §1292(a) (1) (1964). Section 2 of the Expediting Act provides that where the government files an antitrust action in which equitable relief is sought an appeal from the final judgment of the district court will lie only to the Supreme Court. 15 U.S.C. §29 (1964). Since the government necessarily seeks equitable relief in Section 7 litigation, provision is thereby made for direct review of the final judgment in such actions to the Supreme Court and interlocutory appeals are held to be pro- scribed. United States v. Cities Serv. Co., 410 F.2d 662 (1st Cir. 1969); United States v. FMC Corp., 321 F.2d 534 (9th Cir.), appl. denied, 84 S. Ct. 4 (1963). See, United States v. California Coopera- tive Canneries, 279 U.S. 553 (1929). Contra, United States v. Inger- soll-Rand Co., 320 F.2d 509 (3d Cir. 1963) (order entering prelimi- nary injunction held to be reviewable; both parties urged that the court of appeals could hear the appeal).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most