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

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

United States Supreme Court
467 U.S. 752 (1984)


Facts

In 1972, David Grohne established Independence Tube Corporation (Independence) (plaintiff). Independence was a potential competitor of Regal Tube Company (Regal) (defendant) in the market for steel tubing. Regal had previously employed Grohne as an executive while under ownership by Lear Siegler, Inc. After Regal was purchased by Copperweld Corporation (Copperweld) (defendant), Grohne continued to work for Lear Siegler under an agreement stating that Lear Siegler and its employees, including Grohne, would not compete with Regal for five years. Independence attempted to purchase supplies from Yoder Company (Yoder) to start doing business, but Copperweld informed Yoder of the non-compete agreement that Grohne had signed. As a result, Yoder voided Independence’s purchase order, and Independence’s business operations were delayed for nine months. In response, Independence brought a suit against Copperweld and Regal, alleging that the two entities had conspired for anticompetitive purposes in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. A jury found in favor of Independence and awarded damages. Copperweld appealed the decision, arguing that Copperweld could not be guilty of conspiring with an entity owned by Copperweld. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that antitrust liability could attach to two entities considered to be independent actors. Independence appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the coordinated acts of a company and its wholly owned subsidiary could constitute an agreement or conspiracy in violation of antitrust law.

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 (Burger, C.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 219,000 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.