Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U. S. 481 (1968), involved an antitrust treble-damages action *724brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act1 against a manufacturer of shoe machinery by one of its customers, a manufacturer of shoes. In defense, the shoe machinery manufacturer sought to show that the plaintiff had not been injured in its business as required by § 4 because it had passed on the claimed illegal overcharge to those who bought shoes from it. Under the defendant’s theory, the illegal overcharge was absorbed by the plaintiff’s customers — indirect purchasers of the…