Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan

United States Supreme Court
506 U.S. 447 (1993)


Facts

Shirley and Larry McQuillan (plaintiffs) manufactured equestrian products. One of the McQuillans’ products was a horseshoe pad. The horseshoe pad required an elastic polymer called sorbothane. BTR, Inc. (BTR) owned the patent rights to sorbothane. BTR sold sorbothane through Hamilton-Kent Manufacturing Company and Sorbothane, Inc. (sorbothane producers) (defendants). In 1980, the McQuillans entered an agreement with the sorbothane producers to be the exclusive purchasers of sorbothane for equestrian products. In 1981, the McQuillans also became one of five regional distributors of all sorbothane products. The McQuillans’ distributorship included equestrian, medical, and athletic products. However, in 1982, the sorbothane producers threatened to take away the McQuillans’ equestrian distributorship unless the McQuillans agreed to give up the athletic distributorship. The McQuillans refused. In 1983, the sorbothane producers stopped selling sorbothane to the McQuillans. The sorbothane producers began to sell their own sorbothane horseshoe. The sorbothane producers also gave the McQuillans’ athletic distributorship to Spectrum Sports, Inc. (Spectrum) (defendant). Unable to obtain sorbothane, the McQuillans went out of business. The McQuillans sued the sorbothane producers and Spectrum, alleging attempted monopolization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the McQuillans. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding an attempted monopolization claim does not require establishing a market definition. If the plaintiff proves anticompetitive or predatory conduct, that is sufficient to establish a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Spectrum and the sorbothane producers appealed.

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 (White, 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 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.