# United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 29, 1972 · 405 U.S. 596

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424806

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 29, 1972
- **Citations:** 405 U.S. 596; 173 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193; 1972 Trade Cas. (CCH) 73,904; 92 S. Ct. 1126; 31 L. Ed. 2d 515; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 167
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Marshall, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Blacemun, Burger, Powell, Rehjst-Quist
- **Cited by:** 699 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/9424806

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, if Section 1 of the Sherman Act were “to be read in the narrowest possible way, any commercial contract could be deemed to violate it” since “[t]heoretically, all manufacturers, distributors, merchants, sellers, and buyers could be considered as potential competi…
- explaining that "the freedom to compete ... cannot be foreclosed with respect to one sector of the economy because certain private citizens or groups believe that such foreclosure might promote greater competition in a more important sector of the economy”
- holding that “[bjorizontal territorial limitations ... are naked restraints of trade with no purpose except stifling of competition” and are “per se violations of the Sherman Act”
- holding that “an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition” is a per se violation
- holding that district court erred in applying rule of reason to a joint venture’s market division agreement for developing, producing, and selling a common brand

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the result.
The conclusion the Court reaches has its anomalous aspects, for surely, as the District Court’s findings make clear, today’s decision in the Government’s favor will tend to stultify Topeo members’ competition with the great and larger chains. The bigs, therefore, should find it easier to get bigger and, as a consequence, reality *613 seems at odds with the public interest. The per se rule, however, now appears to be so firmly established by the Court that, at this late date, I could not oppose it. Relief, if any is to be forthcoming, apparently must be by way of legislation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424806. Public record. Not legal advice.