About: United States v. Colgate & Co.     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FUnited_States_v._Colgate_%26_Co.

United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business. Per the , a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • United States v. Colgate & Co. (en)
rdfs:comment
  • United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business. Per the , a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • United States v. Colgate & Co. (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
LawsApplied
ParallelCitations
Prior
  • Demurrer sustained, 253 F. 522 . (en)
USPage
USVol
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
  • United States v. Colgate & Co., (en)
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
  • United States v. Colgate & Co. (en)
Holding
  • Colgate did not violate the Sherman Act when it cut off agreements with retailers. (en)
justia
Litigants
  • United States v. Colgate & Co. (en)
majority
  • McReynolds (en)
loc
has abstract
  • United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), is a United States antitrust law case in which the United States Supreme Court noted that a company has the power to decide with whom to do business. Per the , a company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws. This case created an exception to vertical price restraints in vertical agreements. According to the ruling, resale price maintenance is generally illegal per se, but if a supplier merely says it will not deal with resellers that charge less than the supplier's stipulated price, the supplier need not deal with such a retailer. This is a narrow exception, as companies are still prohibited from threatening or warning price-cutters. (en)
cornell
googlescholar
gold:hypernym
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 54 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software