Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

431 U.S. 720, 431 U.S. 720, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
I
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

United States Supreme Court
431 U.S. 720, 431 U.S. 720, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977)

Play video

Facts

Illinois Brick Company (Brick) (defendant) manufactured concrete bricks and sold them to masonry contractors. Those masonry contractors were hired by general contractors running construction projects for various customers, including the State of Illinois (plaintiff) and local government entities. Consequently, Illinois and its entities were indirect purchasers of Brick’s products. Illinois believed that Brick was engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, violating Sherman Antitrust Act § 1. Illinois also believed that the price fixing resulted in Brick overcharging the masonry contractors and that the contractors passed on the overcharges to the general contractors, who passed them on to their customers. Illinois sued Brick under § 4 of the Clayton Act, seeking treble damages for overcharges Illinois incurred. Brick moved for summary judgment, arguing that § 4 allowed direct purchasers to sue for antitrust violations but did not allow indirect purchasers like Illinois to sue. The trial court granted Brick’s motion, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that indirect purchasers could sue if they proved an illegal overcharge had been passed on to them. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

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 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Antitrust

Key Terms