Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Argued March 11, 1953 Decided May 24, 1953 | |||||||
Full case name | Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States | ||||||
Citations |
73 S.Ct. 872 | ||||||
Prior history | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana | ||||||
Holding | |||||||
A publisher selling only combined insertions appearing in both its morning and evening papers does not violate the Sherman Act | |||||||
Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
Case opinions | |||||||
Majority | Clark, joined by Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson | ||||||
Dissent | Burton, joined by Black, Douglas, Minton |
Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953), is an antitrust law decision by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 decision it held that a tie-in sale of morning and evening newspaper advertising space does not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, because there was no market dominance in the tying product.[1]
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 345
- Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States (1958), a similar case
- Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (1984), a case involving "tying arrangements"
- United States v. Loew's Inc. (1962), a case on product bundling
References
- ↑ Turner, Donald F. (1958). "The Validity of Tying Arrangements under the Antitrust Laws". Harvard Law Review. 72 (1): 50–75. JSTOR 1338363.
Further reading
- Markovits, Richard S. (1967). "Tie-ins, Reciprocity, and the Leverage Theory". Yale Law Journal. 76 (7): 1397–1472. JSTOR 794828.
- Wollenberg, Keith K. (1987). "An Economic Analysis of Tie-In Sales: Re-Examining the Leverage Theory". Stanford Law Review. 39 (3): 737–760. JSTOR 1228764.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 1/30/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.