Silver v. New York Stock Exchange

373 U.S. 341, 83 S. Ct. 1246, 10 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1963)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Silver v. New York Stock Exchange

United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 341, 83 S. Ct. 1246, 10 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1963)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Harold Silver (plaintiff) was the owner of Municipal Securities and Municipal Securities, Inc. (collectively, Municipal) (plaintiffs), firms that traded in municipal bonds and corporate over-the-counter securities, respectively. Municipal was registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) but not a member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) (defendant). Municipal took steps to arrange for direct and private electronic lines of communication (the wires) to be established with a number of securities firms that were NYSE members. In the summer of 1958, the NYSE temporarily approved the wires. However, on February 12, 1959, without any prior notice, the NYSE formally disapproved the wires, which resulted in the NYSE-member firms informing Silver that the wires would be discontinued. The NYSE also informed Silver that Silver would no longer have access to the NYSE’s direct stock-ticker service. The NYSE refused to provide Silver with any reasons for its actions and did not give Silver any opportunities for a hearing to challenge the actions. Removal of the wires adversely impacted Municipal by depriving Municipal of an essential mechanism of instantaneously communicating with NYSE-member securities traders and by imposing a stigma. Silver and Municipal filed suit in federal district court, seeking an injunction against the NYSE on the basis that the NYSE’s actions violated the Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act). The district court ruled in Silver and Municipal’s favor. The NYSE appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. Silver and Municipal then petitioned for certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, 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 810,000 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 810,000 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 810,000 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