# Continental T. v.  Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 1977 · 433 U.S. 36

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426920

## Case

- **Full name:** CONTINENTAL T. v.  INC., Et Al. v. GTE SYLVANIA INC.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 23, 1977
- **Citations:** 433 U.S. 36; 97 S. Ct. 2549; 53 L. Ed. 2d 568; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 134
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brennan
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Powell, Stewart, White
- **Cited by:** 1,083 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/9426920

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that, although a contractual require *209 ment that distributors sell Sylvania television sets from authorized locations limited competition among the distributors in the resale of Sylvania televisions (“intrabrand competition”), it ultimately promoted competition w…
- concluding that, although a contractual requirement that distributors sell Sylvania television sets from authorized locations limited competition among the distributors in the resale of Sylvania televisions ("intrabrand competition"), it ultimately promoted competition with ot…
- explaining, “[bjecause of market imperfections such as the so-called “free rider” effect, these services might not be provided by retailers in a purely competitive situation, despite the fact that each retailer’s benefit would be greater if all provided the services than if no…
- concluding that, although a contractual require ment that distributors sell Sylvania television sets from authorized locations limited competition among the distributors in the resale of Sylvania televisions (“intrabrand competition”
- explaining that price surveys “do not necessarily tell us anything conclusive about the welfare effects of [resale price maintenance] because the results are generally consistent with both procompetitive and anticompetitive theories”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.
I would not overrule the per se rule stated in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 (1967), and would therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426920. Public record. Not legal advice.