464:
42:
338:
393:
136:
Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, which prohibits a corporation from acquiring another company when it results in a substantial reduction in competition, applies to competition between different industries for the same end user market. Southern District of New York reversed and
324:
found three product markets: metal containers, glass containers, and beer containers. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the government had failed to prove reasonable probability of lessening competition in the markets it had identified.
321:
123:
534:
312:. The government claimed ten product markets existed, including the can industry, the glass container industry, and various lines of commerce defined by the end use of the containers.
408:
379:
83:
397:
544:
529:
539:
270:
524:
505:
471:
247:
46:
180:
498:
298:
463:
119:
294:
437:
184:
412:
309:
75:
491:
90:
168:
116:
475:
374:
308:
of the assets of Hazel-Atlas, arguing that the merger was a violation of
Section 7 of the
204:
17:
428:
278:
192:
337:
518:
98:
172:
78:
305:
255:
251:
196:
152:
392:
160:
94:
297:, the second largest producer of metal containers in the U.S., acquired the
274:
419:
446:
282:
322:
United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York
221:
White, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg
285:
of companies which manufacture different but related products.
41:
332:
479:
349:
535:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
380:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 378
241:
233:
225:
217:
212:
141:
130:
111:
106:
70:
60:
53:
34:
301:, the third largest producer of glass containers.
277:issues. One issue it addressed was how should a
499:
8:
65:United States v. Continental Can Co., et al.
506:
492:
31:
304:The government sought Continental Can's
281:be defined for purposes of reviewing a
29:1964 United States Supreme Court case
7:
460:
458:
405:United States v. Continental Can Co.
398:United States v. Continental Can Co.
266:United States v. Continental Can Co.
35:United States v. Continental Can Co.
478:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
472:Supreme Court of the United States
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
545:United States Supreme Court stubs
530:United States Supreme Court cases
415:441 (1964) is available from:
540:United States antitrust case law
462:
391:
336:
40:
115:Motion to dismiss granted, 217
525:1964 in United States case law
1:
269:, 378 U.S. 441 (1964), was a
470:This article related to the
561:
457:
447:Oyez (oral argument audio)
299:Hazel-Atlas Glass Company
246:
237:Harlan, joined by Stewart
146:
135:
39:
18:US v. Continental Can Co.
295:Continental Can Company
271:U.S. Supreme Court case
97:2224; 1964 Trade Cas. (
185:William J. Brennan Jr.
310:Clayton Antitrust Act
56:Decided June 22, 1964
54:Argued April 28, 1964
438:Library of Congress
89:84 S. Ct. 1738; 12
348:. You can help by
169:William O. Douglas
157:Associate Justices
487:
486:
396:Works related to
366:
365:
262:
261:
181:John M. Harlan II
16:(Redirected from
552:
508:
501:
494:
466:
459:
451:
445:
442:
436:
433:
427:
424:
418:
395:
375:US antitrust law
361:
358:
340:
333:
273:which addressed
142:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
21:
560:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
550:
549:
515:
514:
513:
512:
455:
449:
443:
440:
434:
431:
425:
422:
416:
388:
371:
362:
356:
353:
346:needs expansion
331:
318:
291:
205:Arthur Goldberg
195:
183:
171:
102:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
558:
556:
548:
547:
542:
537:
532:
527:
517:
516:
511:
510:
503:
496:
488:
485:
484:
467:
453:
452:
401:
387:
386:External links
384:
383:
382:
377:
370:
367:
364:
363:
343:
341:
330:
327:
317:
314:
290:
287:
279:market segment
260:
259:
248:15 U.S.C.
244:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
230:
227:
223:
222:
219:
215:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
193:Potter Stewart
158:
155:
150:
144:
143:
139:
138:
133:
132:
128:
127:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
557:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
531:
528:
526:
523:
522:
520:
509:
504:
502:
497:
495:
490:
489:
483:
481:
477:
473:
468:
465:
461:
456:
448:
439:
430:
421:
414:
410:
406:
402:
400:at Wikisource
399:
394:
390:
389:
385:
381:
378:
376:
373:
372:
368:
360:
351:
347:
344:This section
342:
339:
335:
334:
329:Supreme Court
328:
326:
323:
315:
313:
311:
307:
302:
300:
296:
288:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:Case opinions
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:Chief Justice
148:
147:
145:
140:
134:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
110:
105:
100:
96:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
480:expanding it
469:
454:
404:
354:
350:adding to it
345:
319:
303:
292:
265:
264:
263:
242:Laws applied
200:
188:
176:
173:Tom C. Clark
164:
107:Case history
82:
64:
26:
306:divestiture
256:Clayton Act
226:Concurrence
197:Byron White
153:Earl Warren
519:Categories
357:April 2013
161:Hugo Black
101:) ¶ 71,146
95:U.S. LEXIS
93:953; 1964
293:In 1956,
275:antitrust
252:§ 18
137:remanded.
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
403:Text of
369:See also
316:Judgment
229:Goldberg
218:Majority
124:S.D.N.Y.
117:F. Supp.
420:Findlaw
234:Dissent
131:Holding
450:
444:
441:
435:
432:
429:Justia
426:
423:
417:
283:merger
250:
203:
201:·
199:
191:
189:·
187:
179:
177:·
175:
167:
165:·
163:
474:is a
411:
289:Facts
126:1963)
112:Prior
476:stub
413:U.S.
320:The
258:§ 7)
84:more
76:U.S.
74:378
409:378
352:.
120:761
99:CCH
79:441
521::
407:,
507:e
500:t
493:v
482:.
359:)
355:(
254:(
122:(
87:)
81:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.