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

United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
467 F.2d 1000 (1972)


Facts

In Portland, Oregon, hotels, restaurants, hotel and restaurant supply companies and other businesses organized an association to attract conventions to the city. To finance the association, association members were asked to make predetermined monetary contributions. To aid the collections, Hilton Hotels Corp. (Hilton) (defendant) agreed to give preferential treatment to suppliers who paid their contributions and “boycotted” those suppliers who did not. Hilton was charged with violating § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits actions in restraint of trade. Hilton’s President testified that it was against corporate policy for a specific hotel to condition purchases of supplies upon payment of a contribution to an association. Further, Hilton’s Portland hotel and his assistant testified that it was the hotel’s policy to purchase supplies solely on the basis of price, quality, and service. Although the Portland Hilton’s purchasing agent was instructed not to take part in the boycott, the purchasing agent ignored the order and threatened a supplier with loss of the hotel’s business unless the supplier financially contributed to the association. The district judge instructed the jury that a corporation is responsible for the acts and statements of its agents within the scope of their employment even if the employees disregard official instructions or the corporation’s policies. Hilton was found guilty and it 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 (Browning, 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 205,000 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.