United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association
E1002824
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association was an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that held railroad rate-fixing agreements violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, even if the rates were reasonable.
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Sherman Act case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ antitrust case ⓘ |
| appliedTo | interstate commerce ⓘ |
| appliesToIndustry | railroad industry ⓘ |
| category |
1897 in United States case law
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases NERFINISHED ⓘ United States antitrust case law ⓘ |
| citation | 166 U.S. 290 ⓘ |
| clarified |
that combinations among competitors to maintain rates are unlawful
ⓘ
that the Sherman Act applies to railroads ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1897 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| defendant |
Trans-Missouri Freight Association
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
member railroads of the Trans-Missouri Freight Association ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Edward D. White
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
other dissenting justices of the Supreme Court ⓘ |
| dissentingJusticesCount | 4 ⓘ |
| enforcedBy | United States Department of Justice NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| era | Lochner era ⓘ |
| fullName | United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Agreements among competitors to fix rates are per se illegal under the Sherman Act
ⓘ
Railroad rate-fixing agreements violate the Sherman Antitrust Act even if the rates are reasonable ⓘ Reasonableness of prices is not a defense to a price-fixing agreement under the Sherman Act ⓘ |
| impact |
established that public benefit or reasonableness does not legalize price-fixing
ⓘ
strengthened federal antitrust enforcement against railroads ⓘ |
| interpretedPhrase | "every contract, combination... in restraint of trade" in the Sherman Act ⓘ |
| issue | Whether a railroad rate-fixing association violated §1 of the Sherman Act ⓘ |
| legalArea |
antitrust law
ⓘ
competition law ⓘ railroad regulation ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | price-fixing is unlawful regardless of the reasonableness of the fixed price ⓘ |
| majorityJusticesCount | 5 ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Rufus W. Peckham NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| plaintiff | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
broad interpretation of the term "restraint of trade" in the Sherman Act
ⓘ
per se illegality of price-fixing agreements ⓘ |
| rejectedDefense |
that fixed rates were reasonable
ⓘ
that the agreement was necessary to prevent destructive competition ⓘ |
| relatedTo | United States v. Joint Traffic Association NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| shortName | U.S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
Sherman Act §1
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sherman Antitrust Act NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
combination in restraint of trade
ⓘ
price-fixing agreement ⓘ railroad freight rates ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Northern Securities Co. v. United States
→
precededBy
→
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association
ⓘ