Legal Opinion
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 25, 1977No. 75-904PublishedCited by 2,105 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Marshall
This case raises important questions concerning the interrelationship of the antimerger and private damages action provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
I
Petitioner is one of the two largest manufacturers of bowling equipment in the United States. Respondents are three of the 10 bowling centers owned by Treadway Companies, Inc. Since 1965, petitioner has acquired and operated a large number of bowling centers, including six in the markets in which respondents operate. Respondents instituted this action contending that these acquisitions violated various provisions of the antitrust laws.
In…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. Philadelphia National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,105 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Comcast Corp. v. BehrendSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
2,100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.