United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Company
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1710, 12 L.Ed.2d 775 (1964)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Pennsalt Chemicals Company (Pennsalt) (defendant) accounted for approximately 9 percent of the sodium-chlorate market. In the late 1950s, there was an increased demand for sodium chlorate in the southeastern United States. Pennsalt and Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation (Olin) (defendant) both considered expanding production to meet the southeastern demand. Instead of establishing their own plants, Pennsalt and Olin joined to form Penn-Olin Chemical Company (Penn-Olin) (defendant). Penn-Olin set up a plant in Kentucky. The United States (plaintiff) sued Penn-Olin, alleging the joint venture violated § 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the southeastern market. The United States argued Pennsalt and Olin would have been competitors in the southeastern market for sodium chlorate. However, instead of competing, Pennsalt and Olin chose to form a joint venture. The district court found that Pennsalt and Olin both had the ability to establish separate plants. However, the district court also found there was no probability that both Pennsalt and Olin would have actually entered the market and competed with each other. Therefore, the district court held the joint venture did not substantially lessen competition. The United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.