US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. An agreement among competitors in interstate commerce to fix maximum resale prices of their products violates the Sherman Act. P. 340 U. S. 213.

2. Under the Sherman Act, a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se. P. 340 U. S. 213.

3. The evidence in this case was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that respondents had conspired to fix maximum resale prices. Pp. 340 U. S. 213-214.

4. In an action under the Sherman Act for treble damages, brought by a complainant injured by a conspiracy of sellers of liquor in interstate commerce to fix maximum resale prices, it is no defense that the complainant had conspired with others to fix minimum prices for liquor in violation of the antitrust laws. P. 340 U. S. 214.

5. The fact that corporations are under common ownership and control does not relieve them from liability under the antitrust laws, especially where they hold themselves out as competitors. P. 340 U. S. 215.

6. Since the District Court's instructions to the jury submitted to them only the cause of action under the Sherman Act, it did not err in refusing a more formal withdrawal of an issue concerning a violation of the Clayton Act, which had been charged in the complaint but which was not proved. P. 340 U. S. 215.

182 F.2d 228, reversed.

In an action under the Sherman Act for treble damages, the jury returned a verdict for petitioner, and damages were awarded. The Court of Appeals reversed. 182 F.2d 228. This Court granted certiorari. 340 U.S. 863. Reversed, p. 340 U. S. 215. chanrobles.com-red

Page 340 U. S. 212