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

United States v. Borden Company

United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 460 (1962)


Facts

The Borden Company (Borden) and Bowman Dairy Company (Bowman) (defendants) sold milk to chain grocery stores and independently owned stores at two different prices. Independently operated grocery stores received discounts based on the volume of products purchased. Chain grocery stores received flat discounts. The chains’ flat discounts were higher than the largest possible volume-based discounts available to the independent stores. The United States (plaintiff) sued Borden and Bowman, alleging the price differential charged to chains and independent stores was unlawful price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. As an affirmative defense, Borden and Bowman asserted that the price differential was attributable to differences in cost. Borden provided a cost study that compared the average cost of selling to chains versus the average cost of selling to four groups of independent stores. Bowman provided a cost study that showed independent stores required additional services that were not needed by chains. Most, but not all, independent stores used the additional services. The district court found Borden and Bowman’s cost justifications sufficient and dismissed the suit. The United States appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.

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 (Clark, 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 175,000 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.