Source: http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D1ZJVFFUNIC7FWK
Timestamp: 2018-04-27 04:59:47
Document Index: 596248733

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7']

Contents: Syllabus Stewart, J., Lead Opinion White, J., Concurring Douglas, J., Dissenting Blackmun, J., Dissenting Citations
The Government brought this civil antitrust action against appellee, one of the largest suppliers of janitorial services in the country, with 56 branches serving more than 500 communities in the United States and Canada, and providing about 10% of such service sales in Southern California, contending that appellee’s acquisition of two Southern California janitorial service firms (the Benton companies), which supplied about 7% of such services in Southern California, violated § 7 of the Clayton Act. That section provides that
The Benton companies, some of whose customers engaged in interstate operations, performed all their services within California, locally recruited labor (which accounted for their major expenses) and locally purchased incidental equipment and supplies. The District Court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there had been no § 7 violation. The Government contends that "engaged in commerce." as used in § 7. encompasses corporations like the Benton companies engaged in intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, and that, in any event, the Benton companies’ activities were sufficiently interstate to come within § 7.
1. The phrase "engaged in commerce," as used in § 7 of the Clayton Act, means engaged in the flow of interstate commerce, and was not intended to reach all corporations engaged in activities subject to the federal commerce power; hence, the phrase does not encompass corporations engaged in intrastate activities substantially affecting interstate commerce, and § 7 can be applicable only when both the acquiring corporation and the acquired corporation are engaged in interstate commerce. Pp. 275-283.
2. Since the Benton companies did not participate directly in the sale, purchase, or distribution of goods or services in interstate commerce, they were not "engaged in commerce" within the meaning of § 7. And neither supplying local services to corporations engaged in interstate commerce nor using locally bought supplies manufactured outside California sufficed to satisfy § 7’s "in commerce" requirement. Pp. 283-286.
Title: United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Indus., 422 U.S. 271 (1975)
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Indus., 422 U.S. 271 (1975) in 422 U.S. 271 422 U.S. 272–422 U.S. 273. Original Sources, accessed April 26, 2018, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D1ZJVFFUNIC7FWK.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Indus., 422 U.S. 271 (1975), in 422 U.S. 271, pp. 422 U.S. 272–422 U.S. 273. Original Sources. 26 Apr. 2018. www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D1ZJVFFUNIC7FWK.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Indus., 422 U.S. 271 (1975). cited in 1975, 422 U.S. 271, pp.422 U.S. 272–422 U.S. 273. Original Sources, retrieved 26 April 2018, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D1ZJVFFUNIC7FWK.