Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Klor’s Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 207 (1959)


Facts

In 1952, Klor’s Inc. (Klor’s) (plaintiff) began operations as a retail store for household appliances. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (Broadway-Hale) (defendant), maintained a chain of department stores. Broadway-Hale opened a store next to Klor’s, and the two stores competed directly in the market for household appliances. As competition intensified, Klor’s brought a complaint against Broadway-Hale, alleging that Broadway-Hale was conspiring with manufacturers and distributors of well-known home-appliance brands to boycott Klor’s by either not selling to Klor’s or by selling to Klor’s at unreasonable prices. Klor’s further alleged that Broadway-Hale had used a monopoly position to compel the arrangement and that the boycott on Klor’s business had significantly reduced the ability of Klor’s to compete against Broadway-Hale in the market for household appliances. At trial, Broadway-Hale did not dispute the allegations and instead produced evidence that (1) hundreds of additional retailers were offering the products that Klor’s claimed were being kept out of its store, and (2) the public thus had not been harmed by any agreement between Broadway-Hale and the manufacturers and distributors. Based on Broadway-Hale’s evidence, the district court concluded that the claims did not concern public harm and were thus not unlawful under antitrust law. The district court granted Broadway-Hale’s motion for summary judgment. Klor’s appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed. Klor’s appealed the decision to dismiss the claim on summary judgment.

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 (Black, 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 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.