United States v. Swift & Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 30 flagged citations have been read.
30 later cases cite United States v. Swift & Co.; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on United States v. Swift & Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court held that Swift's "grievous wrong" standard does not govern requests to modify institutional reform consent decrees and adopted a more flexible standard for those requests.
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
To conclude, we hold that the Swift "grievous wrong" standard does not apply to requests to modify consent decrees stemming from institutional reform litigation. Under the flexible standard we adopt today, a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Western District of New York applied Rufo's flexible standard, rather than Swift's strict standard, to requests to terminate antitrust consent decrees.
United States v. Eastman Kodak Co. · Western District of New York · filed
The strict Swift standard would bind the Court to the terms of its own decree even if it is clear that changed circumstances have made it inequitable to apply the decree. Precisely for these reasons, and as the Second Circuit and Supreme Court have recognized, the flexible Rufo standard will be applied in determining Kodak’s motion to terminate the decrees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit confined Swift's strict modification language to its circumstances and held that Rufo's flexible standard governs equitable Rule 60(b)(5) requests generally.
Bellevue Manor Associates v. United States · Ninth Circuit · filed
Rufo pointed out that the stringent language in Swift-that only a “grievous wrong” could warrant relief (286 U.S. at 119, 52 S.Ct. 460)-“was not intended to take on a talismanic quality” (502 U.S. at 380, 112 S.Ct. 748). That language appropriately reflected the specific circumstances of the Swift case, but it had been incorrectly construed by lower courts as a general standard for Rule 60(b)(5) motions (id. at 379-81, 112 S.Ct. 748). ... Accordingly we hold that the Rufo standard applies to all Rule 60(b)(5) petitions brought on equitable grounds.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Swift & Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace