Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association v. United States
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 600 (1914)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
The Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association (Lumber Association) (defendant) was a lumber trade association composed of lumber retailers. Lumber Association compiled a list of lumber wholesalers known to sell lumber directly to customers, a market that Lumber Association’s members believed to be their exclusive domain. Lumber Association distributed the list to its members, who were required to cease doing business with any of the wholesalers identified as selling directly to customers in order to protect the members’ business of selling directly to consumers. Although there was no express agreement to refrain from doing business with the listed wholesalers or any penalty for doing such business, in practice Lumber Association refused to do business with any of the wholesalers on the list. The United States (plaintiff) brought suit, alleging that Lumber Association’s list was a violation of antitrust law as a conspiracy to restrain competition. Lumber Association argued that, in order to prove a conspiracy under antitrust law, some agreement had to be shown among the alleged conspirators. The district court found that Lumber Association’s list was a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Lumber Association appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Day, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
