United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.
| United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 10, 1959 Decided February 29, 1960 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. |
| Citations | 362 U.S. 29 (more) 80 S. Ct. 503; 4 L. Ed. 2d 505 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 164 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1958); probable jurisdiction noted, 359 U.S. 903 (1959). |
| Subsequent | Vacated and remanded, 365 U.S. 125 (1961); on remand, 221 F. Supp. 948 (D.D.C. 1963); affirmed, 344 F.2d 173, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 79 (D.C. Cir. 1965). |
| Holding | |
| By utilizing wholesalers and other retailers, the company actively induced unwilling retailers to comply with the policy rather than declining to deal with retailers who refused to abide by the resale price maintenance policy; the resulting concerted action constituted a conspiracy or combination in violation of the Sherman Act, although it was not based on any contract, express or implied. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Whittaker |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 | |
United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960), was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the so-called Colgate doctrine, which substantially insulates unilateral refusals to deal with price-cutters from the antitrust laws. The Parke, Davis & Co. case held that, when a company goes beyond "the limited dispensation" of Colgate by taking affirmative steps to induce adherence to its suggested prices, it puts together a combination among competitors to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court held that when a company abandons an illegal practice because it knows the US Government is investigating it and contemplating suit, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold the case that follows moot and dismiss it without granting relief sought against the illegal practice.