Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United States Machinery Corp.
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 481 (1968)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Hanover Shoe, Inc. (plaintiff) made shoes. United Shoe Machinery Corp. (United Shoe) (defendant) made shoe machinery. United Shoe would not sell its machinery to Hanover Shoe. Rather, United Shoe, using its monopoly power, forced Hanover Shoe to rent the machinery at a cost greater than what the purchase cost for the machinery would be. It was also undisputed that Hanover Shoe raised its prices for shoes sold to its customers in an attempt to offset the higher rental prices for the shoe machinery. Hanover Shoe sued United Shoe under § 4 of the Clayton Act. United Shoe argued that, because of Hanover Shoe’s offset from its higher rental prices, Hanover Shoe had suffered no damages. The district court entered judgment in favor of Hanover Shoe. The court of appeals reversed, holding that while United Shoe wrongly used its monopoly power to rent the shoe machinery at a cost greater cost than what the purchase cost for the machinery would be, Hanover Shoe had suffered no damages in light of the offset from the latter’s higher prices. Hanover Shoe sought review in the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.