Legal writing

Dear Ms. Sara

Sure. For your final paragraph review how Std Oil set the stage for the subsequent monopoly cases.

Again, this is similar to a news story: Tell them what the story is about; Tell the story; Tell them you told the story.

I think a brief summary of the journey starting with Std Oil will nicely finish your paper.

I have read your paper. It still needs work.

You did not follow my advice on Alcoa. You should the Alcoa materials in the casebook and our classroom discussion of it. Your section on Alcoa does not advances your paper.

Kindest regards,

_____________________________________________

(1)

United States V. Aluminum Company of America

The international Side of the ;

A Note on Alcoa's Alleged price squeeze

The Supreme Court; Affirm;;Judge Hand—The American Tobacco Case

(2)

The Supreme Court Refines Its Test for Monopolization—A Look at United States V. Griffith

United States V. United Shoe Machinery Corp

I wrote this, But, That's not what Professor Needs. He said he needs a message in the top of the page and The Professor needs personal opinion of each case like the attached file which I did.

United States v. Aluminum Co. America (1945).

The main issues in the case were whether a state has the mandate to impose

liabilities to persons not within its intelligence, for taking part in activities that are

outside its borders and that has consequences within its borders. U.S. v. Aluminum

Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 425 (2d Cir. 1945).

The main issue concerning the case was whether a state may impose liabilities even upon or businesses that are not within its fidelity, for conducts or acts committed outside its borders and that have consequences within its borders. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d.

The court ruled that any state may impose liabilities on persons or a company that are not within its fidelity, for an act committed outside its borders and that has consequences within the borders of the state (Mason,1949). According to the court, the agreement of alliance that the defendant involved would clearly violate the Sherman Antitrust Act had it been made within the United States and even though made abroad, the act would still be unlawful provided they were intended to influence the imports (Mason,1949). Evidence presented before the court showed that the shareholders of the integration had the intention of restrict imports. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d.

Reading the Sherman Antitrust Act requires a due regard to the limitation that are customarily observed by nations while exercising their power. Considering the Sherman Antitrust Act, it may be credible to assume that the Congress may not have intended the Act to cover them. For instance, for conduct with no consequences in the U.S. especially, when considering effect to other nations due to the U.S.’s action regarding the agreements to be against the law, Congress may not be credited for any charges by its courts. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d.

United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100 (1948)

In this case, Griffith was accused of violating sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for running four affiliated corporations that is operating motion picture theaters in several towns in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico without competitor (Mason,1949). The affiliates were also accused of using the buying power of the entire circuit to acquire privileges from the distributors in the industry, therefore, baring the competitors from obtaining first-or-second films to run their business successfully (Mason,1949). The District Court found there was no violation of the Act in any of the respect charged in the complaint. The court, therefore, dismissed the case

Unlike the Standard oil company of new jersey v. United States, the court found no evidence supporting the conspiracy between the affiliates and the distributors which would violate the Sherman Act (Mason,1949). The court concluded that the agreement under which the films were distributed were not inhibiting competition, therefore, could not monopolize the industry.