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.
American Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States, 1945 — 324 U.S. 836 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
American Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States
324 U.S. 836·Supreme Court of the United States·1945
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
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
No. 837.
No. 838.
No. 840.
American Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States; and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States.
March 26, 1945.
Messrs. George W. Whiteside and Milton Handler for petitioners in No. 837.
Messrs. Bethuel M. Webster and Francis H. Horan for petitioners in No. 838.
Messrs. Harold F. McGuire, B. S. Womble, Thomas Turner Cooke and Richard C. Stoll for petitioners in No. 840.
Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge and Mr. Robert L. Stern for the United States.
[MAJORITY]
Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted limited to the question whether actual exclusion of competitors is necessary to the crime of monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
Reported below: 147 F. 2d 93.