Source: cases/15usc1/us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_551/0877_01/index.html
On appeal Leegin did not dispute that it had entered into vertical price-fixing agreements with its retailers.
As a consequence, the per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue,
Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either procompetitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed.
As the rule would proscribe a significant amount of procompetitive conduct, these agreements appear ill suited for per se condemnation.
is now overruled. Vertical price restraints are to be judged according to the rule of reason.
Resale price maintenance should be subject to more careful scrutiny, by contrast, if many competing manufacturers adopt the practice.
If there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or supports a dominant, inefficient retailer.
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.
Respondent did not make this allegation in the lower courts, and we do not consider it here.
casedsl 1 case /us/551/0877-01 name Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. cite 551 U.S. 877 (2007) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2007-06-28 url catalog/cases/us/volume_551/0877_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl sha1=83d98808195159e0037fceb821a59245bee805c6 chars=60000 law 15usc1 role rule-announced posture civil treble-damages suit by terminated discounting retailer against manufacturer; jury verdict for plaintiff under per se rule (expert on procompetitive effects excluded), affirmed by CA5; certiorari on whether to overrule Dr. Miles result remanded element agreement : satisfied [conceded] role applied variant vertical-agreement/manufacturer-retailer-minimum-resale-price-pledge fact @2544..2622 [supports] | In 1997, Leegin instituted the “Brighton Retail Pricing and Promotion Policy.” fact @4017..4167 [supports] | It offered retailers incentives to become Heart Stores, and, in exchange, retailers pledged, among other things, to sell at Leegin’s suggested prices. fact @5575..5701 [cuts-against] | Leegin responded that it had established a unilateral pricing policy lawful under § 1, which applies only to concerted action. held @6107..6217 | On appeal Leegin did not dispute that it had entered into vertical price-fixing agreements with its retailers. gloss Jury found agreement over a Colgate unilateral-policy defense; the point was abandoned on appeal, so the Supreme Court takes the agreement as given. element restraint.per-se : not-reached variant per-se-rejected/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenance fact @2638..2750 [supports] | Following the policy, Leegin refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below suggested prices. fact @4485..4593 [supports] | In December 2002, Leegin discovered Kay’s Kloset had been marking down Brighton’s entire line by 20 percent. fact @4808..4865 [supports] | Its request refused, Leegin stopped selling to the store. fact @5344..5439 [supports] | The District Court excluded the testimony, relying on the per se rule established by Dr. Miles. rule @10049..10185 | As a consequence, the per se rule is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue, rule @25368..25540 | Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either procompetitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed. held @26022..26157 | As the rule would proscribe a significant amount of procompetitive conduct, these agreements appear ill suited for per se condemnation. held @52662..52755 | is now overruled. Vertical price restraints are to be judged according to the rule of reason. gloss Overrules Dr. Miles (1911): the judgment below rested solely on per se illegality, so it is reversed without any finding on whether this policy was unreasonable. Mode of analysis only — the case continues under the rule of reason on remand — hence not-reached / rule-announced rather than not-satisfied. Fact polarity is relative to "per se treatment applies" as the law stood under Dr. Miles. element restraint.rule-of-reason : not-reached variant rule-of-reason/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenance rule @32031..32164 | Resale price maintenance should be subject to more careful scrutiny, by contrast, if many competing manufacturers adopt the practice. rule @32676..32880 | If there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or supports a dominant, inefficient retailer. gloss Court supplies guidance factors for remand (breadth of use in the industry, source of the restraint, market power) but does not apply them to Leegin. element restraint.market-power : not-reached variant rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer rule @33439..33636 | As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power. element x-horizontal-cartel-via-dual-distribution : not-reached role background scope procedural theory horizontal cartel: the manufacturer's owner is also a competing retailer variant not-preserved/manufacturer-owner-also-retailer fact @1405..1505 [supports] | Leegin’s president, Jerry Kohl, also has an interest in about 70 stores that sell Brighton products. held @52949..53041 | Respondent did not make this allegation in the lower courts, and we do not consider it here. gloss Alternative horizontal theory (manufacturer's president owns competing retail stores) raised for the first time in the Supreme Court; a second route to the agreement/per-se elements, not considered because not raised below. element commerce : not-reached element injury : not-reached gloss Jury awarded $1.2 million (trebled) for the terminated retailer; damages/injury not reviewed. misfit The opinion CHANGES THE LAW (overrules a per se rule) rather than applying it: its content is almost entirely `rule` material about the element model itself (which mode of analysis governs a category of restraint). The notation records a case as an instance; a law-side "precedent overruled / rule replaced as of date" construct is needed, and older instances decided under Dr. Miles (e.g. Ford v. Webster's citing it) need a way to be marked superseded. misfit The case-level role is rule-announced, so every block inherits it and must carry a `rule` quote; the bare not-reached blocks and the forfeited dual-distribution theory were given `role background` only to pass the checker. "Element not touched in a rule-announcing opinion" has no role value. misfit The selected mode (rule of reason for vertical minimum RPM) is carried only by gloss/variant text and by the rule-announced restraint.rule-of-reason block; there is no structured "mode-selected" value on the restraint.per-se block. misfit Result is a reversal of a plaintiff's jury verdict with remand; neither claimant-lost nor remanded conveys "claimant's judgment vacated, claim survives under a harder standard". misfit Stare decisis analysis (Part IV) and the statutory-history argument (Consumer Goods Pricing Act) have no home in an element/fact notation. misfit Text capped at 60000 chars: majority is complete; Justice Breyer's four-Justice dissent is truncated after its opening pages. v1 has `scope dissent`, but no dissent block was added (no new quote lines in this migration). misfit The agreement element is recorded [conceded] here, yet it was a contested jury finding below (Colgate unilateral-policy defense rejected); basis reflects only this opinion's posture.