International Shoe v. Federal Trade Commission

280 U.S. 291 (1930)

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.

International Shoe v. Federal Trade Commission

United States Supreme Court
280 U.S. 291 (1930)

KL

Facts

McElwain Company made and sold shoes and retained a large inventory of hides and shoes. Beginning in 1920, shoe prices began to fall and McElwain found itself in significant debt. Its officers concluded that the company was in deep financial distress and that selling McElwain or its stock was the only way the company could survive in any form. McElwain’s competitor International Shoe (defendant) acquired McElwain’s capital stock. International Shoe decided to purchase McElwain’s stock rather than its entire business, including its shoe inventory, in order to allow McElwain to retain its own staff. International Shoe’s financial standing was excellent at the time. In fact, it was experiencing such growth that it had to cancel some shoe orders. As part of the merger agreement, International Shoe got access to McElwain’s factories, which it could use to manufacture enough shoes to meet its demand. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) commenced an action after International Shoe’s purchase, finding that the merger was anticompetitive and ordered the divestiture of McElwain’s stock. International Shoe appealed, arguing that the merger was legal because International Shoe was the only available purchaser and McElwain was insolvent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sutherland, J.)

Dissent (Stone, 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 811,000 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 811,000 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 811,000 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