Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vance

355 U.S. 389, 78 S. Ct. 358, 2 L. Ed. 2d 350, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1829, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,916
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 20, 1958
Docket69
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 355 U.S. 389 (Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vance, 355 U.S. 389, 78 S. Ct. 358, 2 L. Ed. 2d 350, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1829, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,916 (1958).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., decided today, ante, p. 373. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages * does lie under § 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F. 2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F. 2d 86, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 1023.

The complaint in this case alleges both sales “at unreasonably low prices” and price discriminations in violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set *390 forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, ante, p. 373, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 383.]
*

The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Tucker
745 F.3d 1054 (Tenth Circuit, 2014)
O'Connell v. Citrus Bowl, Inc.
99 F.R.D. 117 (E.D. New York, 1983)
Janich Bros., Inc. v. The American Distilling Co.
570 F.2d 848 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Porter v. Household Finance Corp. of Columbus
385 F. Supp. 336 (S.D. Ohio, 1974)
Steel Slides, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co.
321 F. Supp. 613 (S.D. New York, 1970)
South Carolina Council of Milk Producers, Inc. v. Newton
241 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. South Carolina, 1965)
Englander Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
293 F.2d 802 (Sixth Circuit, 1961)
Gold Fuel Service, Inc. v. Esso Standard Oil Company
195 F. Supp. 85 (D. New Jersey, 1961)
Englander Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
186 F. Supp. 82 (N.D. Ohio, 1960)
Schnabel v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
185 F. Supp. 122 (N.D. Iowa, 1960)
Gold Fuel Service, Inc. v. Esso Standard Oil Co.
157 A.2d 30 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
Royer's, Inc. v. United States
265 F.2d 615 (Third Circuit, 1959)
Kroch v. Texas Company
167 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. New York, 1958)
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Vance
356 U.S. 910 (Supreme Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
355 U.S. 389, 78 S. Ct. 358, 2 L. Ed. 2d 350, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1829, 1958 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safeway-stores-inc-v-vance-scotus-1958.