Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States

United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 131 (1969)


Facts

Before 1940, the City of Tucson, Arizona, had two major daily newspapers, the Star and the Citizen, which competed against each other aggressively. Of the two newspapers, the Star was more successful in attracting advertising revenue, while the Citizen (defendant) generally ran a deficit. In 1936, the Citizen came under new ownership. One of the new owners moved to Tucson and was ready to invest resources to keep the Citizen afloat while attempting to make the Citizen more competitive. At no time did the new owners appear to contemplate selling the Citizen or obtain a market appraisal of the Citizen’s value. In 1940, the Citizen reached an agreement with the Star to merge certain components of their respective operations. Under the agreement, both the Citizen and the Star would continue to operate, but their manufacturing and printing processes would be consolidated and their profits would be shared equally. A corporation, Tucson Newspapers, Inc., was formed to manage the joint enterprise. The stated intent of the merger was to end competition between the Citizen and the Star through a combination of fixed pricing, profit sharing, and prohibition of competition. After the merger, profits for both newspapers skyrocketed over the next 24 years. Eventually, the United States (plaintiff) brought an action against the Citizen and the Star for violating § 7 of the Clayton Act. At trial, the only defense presented by the Citizen was the failing-company doctrine. The district court held that the doctrine did not apply and found the Citizen liable for an antitrust violation. The Citizen appealed the decision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.