Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • U
  • United States v. General Dynamics CorporationUnited States v. General Dynamics Corporation
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

United States v. General Dynamics Corporation

United States Supreme Court
415 U.S. 486 (1974)


Material Services Corporation (Material Services) (defendant) was coal-mining company and supplier of building materials. In 1954, Material Services began to buy stock in United Electric Coal Companies (United) (defendant), which operated strip mines. By 1959, Material Services owned a controlling share of United with 34 percent of United’s stock. General Dynamics Corporation (General Dynamics) (defendant) then acquired Material Services and became the fifth-largest coal producer in the United States. The United States (plaintiff) sued General Dynamics, arguing that Material Service’s takeover of United in 1959 violated § 7 of the Clayton Act. At trial, the United States relied on statistics showing that the coal industry was highly concentrated, and the market grew more concentrated when Material Services acquired United. The district court did not dispute the accuracy of the statistics. However, other facts about the coal industry indicated that the merger did not substantially lessen competition. Coal producers generally sold coal under long-term requirements contracts. Usually, most of a firm’s coal was committed to satisfying these requirements contracts. Competitive advantage was best gained through a firm’s ability to secure new requirements contracts, which required substantial excess coal reserves. The district court found that, in the 1950s, United did not have enough coal to compete with other firms for new requirements contracts. Therefore, United did not have the ability to compete and influence prices, and its acquisition by a competitor did not substantially reduce competition. Accordingly, the district court ruled there was no Clayton Act violation. The United States appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court, arguing the undisputed market concentration alone was sufficient to support a Clayton Act violation.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)

Dissent (Douglas, 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 449,000 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 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial