# Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 25, 1953 · 345 U.S. 594

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420957

## Case

- **Full name:** TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CO. Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 25, 1953
- **Citations:** 345 U.S. 594; 73 S. Ct. 872; 97 L. Ed. 2d 1277; 97 L. Ed. 1277; 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2716
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burton
- **Judges:** Clark, Burton
- **Cited by:** 772 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420957

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing “every newspaper is a dual trader in separate though interdependent' markets” for advertisers and readers, but defining the relevant market by reference only to advertisers and noting “[t]his case concerns solely one of these markets”
- holding readership “bought” by advertisers in morning newspaper was sane “product” sold by evening newspaper, where nothing suggested advertisers viewed city’s morning or evening newspaper readers as other than fungible' customer potential
- stating that the Court has given the interstate commerce provision in the Sherman Act a “broad interpre-tationf ]” with a "wide sweep” and citing several cases
- finding a geographic market definition correct even when 43.5% of a hospital’s patients came from outside the defined market

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Burton,
with whom Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissenting.
The majority opinion seeks to avoid the effect of United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100 , and of International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392 , by taking the position that the Times-Picayune does not enjoy a “dominant position” in the general newspaper advertising market of New Orleans, including all three papers, as a single market. The complaint, however, is not and need not be dependent upon the relation of the Times-Picayune to that entire market.
The complaint is that the Times-Picayune enjoys a distinct, conceded and complete monopoly of access to the morning newspaper readers in the New Orleans area and that it uses that monopoly to restrain unreasonably the competition between its evening newspaper, the New Orleans States, and the independent New Orleans Item, in the competitive field of evening newspaper advertising. Insistence by the Times-Picayune upon acceptance of its compulsory combination advertising contracts makes payment for, and publication of, classified and general advertising in its own evening paper an inescapable part of the price of access to the all-important columns of the single morning paper. I agree with the District Court that such conduct violates the Sherman Act under the circumstances here presented. See also, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 52 (a), “Findings of fact shall not be set aside, unless clearly erroneous . . .” and Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143 . In view of the disposition made of this case by the majority, it is not necessary to discuss the terms of the decree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9420957. Public record. Not legal advice.