Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

E530384

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that set influential but controversial standards for evaluating vertical and conglomerate mergers under the Clayton Act.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (53)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
antitrust case
merger case
aroseFrom proposed merger of Brown Shoe Company and G.R. Kinney Company
hasAreaOfLaw antitrust law
competition law
corporate law
merger control
hasChiefJusticeInMajority Earl Warren NERFINISHED
hasCitation 370 U.S. 294
8 L. Ed. 2d 510
82 S. Ct. 1502
hasCountry United States of America
surface form: United States
hasCourt Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED
hasDecisionType majority opinion
hasDocketNumber No. 4
hasHolding Congress intended to arrest anticompetitive tendencies in their incipiency
Section 7 of the Clayton Act is concerned with probabilities, not certainties, of anticompetitive effects
relevant market must be determined by practical indicia, not abstract economic theory alone
the proposed merger violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act
hasIndustry shoe manufacturing
shoe retailing
hasJurisdiction federal jurisdiction
hasKeyConcept conglomerate effects
incipiency doctrine NERFINISHED
line of commerce
practical indicia of market definition
section of the country
substantial lessening of competition
trend toward concentration
vertical foreclosure
hasLegalIssue definition of relevant geographic market
definition of relevant product market
incipiency standard in merger control
legality of horizontal merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
legality of vertical merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
role of market share and concentration in merger analysis
hasLowerCourt United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri NERFINISHED
hasMajorityOpinionBy Earl Warren NERFINISHED
hasPetitioner Brown Shoe Company NERFINISHED
hasProceduralPosture direct appeal by the United States from a district court decree approving the merger with conditions
hasRespondent United States of America NERFINISHED
hasVote 8–1
involvesStatute Clayton Act NERFINISHED
Section 7 of the Clayton Act NERFINISHED
Sherman Antitrust Act NERFINISHED
isCharacterizedAs influential but controversial precedent on vertical and conglomerate mergers
isKnownFor articulating detailed standards for merger analysis under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
emphasizing congressional intent to preserve small, locally owned businesses
influencing later Supreme Court merger decisions
wasArguedOn 1961-11-28
1961-11-29
wasDecidedOn 1962-06-25

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

The Antitrust Paradox criticizes Brown Shoe Co. v. United States