FEDERAL · 15 U.S.C. · Chapter 1
Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure
15 U.S.C. § 9
Title15 — Commerce and Trade
Chapter1 — MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
This text of 15 U.S.C. § 9 (Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
15 U.S.C. § 9.
Text
The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Richard Oldroyd v. Elmira Savings Bank, Fsb
134 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. Timothy McKenna
948 F.3d 105 (Third Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Nationwide Trailer Rental System, Inc.
156 F. Supp. 800 (D. Kansas, 1957)
Uneedus v. California Shoppers, Inc.
86 Cal. App. 3d 932 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)
Fry v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
355 F. Supp. 1151 (N.D. Texas, 1973)
Grace Co. v. Williams
20 F. Supp. 263 (W.D. Missouri, 1937)
Gray Line, Inc. v. Gray Line Sightseeing Companies Associated, Inc.
246 F. Supp. 495 (N.D. California, 1965)
Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.
454 F. Supp. 6 (S.D. New York, 1978)
United States v. Lockhart
33 F.2d 597 (D. Nebraska, 1929)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American & Effird Mills, Inc.
758 F. Supp. 338 (W.D. North Carolina, 1991)
United States v. Anthony Cuti
(Second Circuit, 2014)
Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices
(Second Circuit, 2015)
Meza v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(E.D. California, 2019)
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Goglia Nutrition, LLC
(S.D. California, 2025)
Bearden v. Ballad Health
(E.D. Tennessee, 2019)
LifeVoxel Virginia SPV, LLC v. LifeVoxel.AI, Inc.
(S.D. California, 2024)
Beckman v. Arizona Canning Company, LLC
(S.D. California, 2019)
In re QuantumScape Securities Class Action Litigation
(N.D. California, 2021)
Vera v. FlexShopper, LLC
(N.D. California, 2022)
Hubbard v. Google LLC
(N.D. California, 2021)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 27, 1894, ch. 349, §74, 28 Stat. 570; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 909.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
Codification
Act Mar. 3, 1911, vested jurisdiction in "district" courts, instead of "circuit" courts.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Change of Name
Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted "United States attorneys" for "district attorneys of the United States". See section 541 et seq. of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Codification
Act Mar. 3, 1911, vested jurisdiction in "district" courts, instead of "circuit" courts.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Change of Name
Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted "United States attorneys" for "district attorneys of the United States". See section 541 et seq. of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
15 U.S.C. § 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/15/9.