ANTITRUST--ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT--"IN COMMERCE". JURISDICTION REQUIREMENT NOT SATISFIED BY SALES OF ASPHALT WITHIN ONE STATE FOR USE IN INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

California asphaltic concrete manufacturers brought suit against three major oil companies for violation of antitrust laws in the sale of asphaltic concrete. The manufacturers claimed that the oil companies violated the Robinson-Patman Act prohibiting price discrimination in interstate commerce. The asphaltic concrete, while manufactured and sold within the state of California, was used for the construction of of interstate highways and hence pertained to interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the local activities relating to asphaltic concrete did not have enough of an effect on interstate commerce. The circuit court reversed and the case was brought to the Supreme Court on the question of jurisdiction. The crux of the case rested on whether the asphaltic concrete could be said to be in commerce within the definition of the Robinson-Patman Act. In interpreting that Act some courts have used the "state-line" test; was the sale transacted across a state line. The Supreme Court adopted this test in this case and found that the asphaltic concrete manufacturing was purely local in nature. Such a holding could encourage interstate corporation to structure their business so that potential liability under the Robinson-Patman Act could be aboided.

  • Corporate Authors:

    Fordham University Press

    University Box L, 2546 Belmont Avenue
    Bronx, NY  United States  10458
  • Publication Date: 0

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00125416
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Oct 18 1975 12:00AM