Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
A private action for treble damages under 4 of the Clayton Act, as amended, may be maintained for unlawful price discriminations violative of 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended, but not for sales at unreasonably low prices which violate only 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., ante, p. 373. Pp. 389-390.
239 F.2d 144, judgment vacated and cause remanded.
John B. Tittmann argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Douglas Stripp.
Robert J. Nordhaus argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Sam Dazzo.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., decided today, ante, p. 373. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages
*
does lie under 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F.2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F.2d 86, we granted certiorari.
The complaint in this case alleges both sales "at unreasonably low prices" and price discriminations in violation of 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set [355 U.S. 389, 390] forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, ante, p. 373, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote * ] The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under 16 of the Clayton Act. [355 U.S. 389, 391]
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 355 U.S. 389
No. 69
Argued: November 21, 1957
Decided: January 20, 1958
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)