United States v. Continental Can Co.

378 U.S. 441 (1964)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
U
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Continental Can Co.

United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 441 (1964)

Facts

In 1956, Continental Can Company (Continental Can) (defendant) acquired Hazel-Atlas Glass Company (Hazel-Atlas) (defendant). Continental Can was the second-largest producer of metal containers, and Hazel-Atlas was the third-largest producer of glass containers. The United States (plaintiff) brought a complaint, alleging that the merger between Continental Can and Hazel-Atlas violated § 7 of the Clayton Act, and sought an order of divestiture. The district court determined that the proper product market was the market for metal and glass containers. However, with the exception of beer containers, the district court did not consider competition between metal and glass containers to be the type of competition relevant to consideration under the Clayton Act. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the government had failed to prove that the merger was likely to produce significant anticompetitive effects in the market for either metal or glass containers. The government appealed the district court’s determination of the relevant product market.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, 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 806,000 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 806,000 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 806,000 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