This case was a civil contempt proceeding brought by plaintiff William Heikkila against Immigration and Naturalization Service officials Bruce Barber and Stan Olson. The charges stemmed from the officials' deportation of Heikkila to Finland in April 1958 after the district court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging a deportation order, and from their actions in relation to a temporary restraining order issued by another judge. The court held that a final judgment dismissing the action had been entered on April 3 or 4, so the case was no longer pending when deportation occurred; it further examined the timing, notice, and scope of the restraining order and concluded that the officials' conduct did not constitute contempt.
This case concerns the proper accounting of profits and damages following a Ninth Circuit ruling that the plaintiffs committed trademark infringement and unfair competition by selling paint under a name confusingly similar to the defendant's 'Dutch' brand. The district court addressed the method for allocating costs to the infringing product, the time period of liability, attorneys' fees, and treatment of inter-company sales. It rejected the sales ratio method for cost allocation because evidence showed that a disproportionately high share of administrative, selling, and manufacturing expenses related to the infringing paint, opting instead for a modified version of the defendant's Keenan Report that attributed 85 percent of administrative and selling expenses to Dutch paint along with a 20 percent deduction for manufacturing costs. The court allowed reasonable attorneys' fees as damages due to the willful nature of the infringement and accepted elimination of inter-company sales from the gross sales figures. The decision rested on equitable principles, the Lanham Act's burden-shifting rules for proving costs, and the goal of arriving at a just approximation of actual profits without requiring perfect precision.
This case concerned a water carrier's challenge to reduced rail tariffs for newsprint shipments on the west coast, after the Interstate Commerce Commission declined to suspend the rates or hold a hearing on the plaintiff's protests. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief in federal court, raising issues about the Commission's procedures for allowing tariffs without intermediate-point application, its decision not to suspend the rates pending investigation, and shortened notice for effectiveness. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commission's non-suspension decisions under the Interstate Commerce Act. The court reasoned that such actions are preliminary, not final agency actions, and that the plaintiff must first exhaust administrative remedies by filing a formal complaint under Section 13 of the Act before judicial review becomes available. The court also noted that the Administrative Procedure Act does not expand review in this context and found no indication of arbitrary action by the Commission.
This case is a criminal prosecution under the Sherman Act and Wilson Tariff Act charging U.S. importers, their officers, and a U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese exporter with conspiring to control the market for Japanese wire nails on the U.S. West Coast through exclusive supply arrangements, territorial allocations, and price stabilization that excluded competitors. The court denied motions to dismiss either count of the indictment, holding that both statutes apply to import trade and that U.S. jurisdiction extends to American defendants whose conduct restrains U.S. commerce regardless of where the agreement was formed or whether related acts are lawful abroad. The court also granted limited bills of particulars to one defendant while denying the remaining motions to strike or for further discovery.
This case is an antitrust treble-damage suit by Samuel Goldwyn Productions against Twentieth Century-Fox, National Theatres, and related Fox entities alleging conspiracies in the motion-picture industry. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims accruing before May 16, 1947, on statute-of-limitations grounds, while plaintiff sought to rely on the earlier government Paramount case to toll the limitations period under Section 5 of the Clayton Act and to treat the Paramount decree as prima facie evidence. The court held that the Paramount proceeding involved different conspirators, different objectives, and different means than the conspiracy alleged here, so Section 5 did not suspend the three-year California statute of limitations and the decree could not be given collateral-estoppel effect. Accordingly, pre-1947 claims are time-barred and the decree is inadmissible.
This case involved a dispute over $12,411.40 in withheld funds under a building contract between Colusa-Glenn Production Credit Association (the owner) and contractor Berlinger, after the contractor defaulted on performance and the surety Phoenix Insurance completed the job and paid liens. The United States intervened claiming priority via federal tax liens assessed against the contractor on various dates in 1953-1954, while the surety asserted an equitable right to the funds based on its performance under the bond. The court found that no amounts were due to the contractor under the contract terms at the time of default or lien filings, so there were no "property or rights to property" of the contractor to which the tax liens could attach under 26 U.S.C. §§ 3670-3672. It therefore ordered the funds paid to the surety rather than the government, distinguishing this from cases where the contractor had substantially performed.