Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., v. VANCE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, 1958 — 355 U.S. 389 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., v. VANCE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
355 U.S. 3892 L. Ed. 2d 350·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 383.]
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., v. VANCE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
No. 69.
Argued November 21, 1957.
Decided January 20, 1958.
John B. Tittmann argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Douglas Stripp.
Robert J. Nordhaus argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Sam Dazzo.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan]
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., decided today, ante, p. 373. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages does lie under § 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F. 2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F. 2d 86, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 1023.
The complaint in this case alleges both sales “at unreasonably low prices” and price discriminations in violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, ante, p. 373, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 383.]
The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act.