page_title: United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.
section_title: Dissent
hierarchical_section_title: United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. / Ruling of Supreme Court / Dissent
caption_attribution_description: English: John_Marshall_Harlan II
context_page_description: United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the so-called Colgate doctrine, which substantially insulates unilateral refusals to deal with price-cutters from the antitrust laws. The Parke, Davis & Co. case held that, when a company goes beyond "the limited dispensation" of Colgate by taking affirmative steps to induce adherence to its suggested prices, it puts together a combination among competitors to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court held that when a company abandons an illegal practice because it knows the US Government is investigating it and contemplating suit, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold the case that follows moot and dismiss it without granting relief sought against the illegal practice.
context_section_description: Justice Harlan protested:
  The Court's opinion reaches much further than at once may meet the eye, and justifies fuller discussion than otherwise might appear warranted. Scrutiny of the opinion will reveal that the Court has done no less than send to its demise the Colgate doctrine, which has been a basic part of antitrust law concepts since it was first announced in 1919.
  He found the majority's limited Colgate doctrine vague and incomprehensible:
  The Court now says that the seller runs afoul of the Sherman Act when he goes beyond mere announcement of his policy and refusal to sell not because the bare announcement and refusal fall outside the statutory phrase, but because any additional step removes a "countervailing consideration" in favor of permitting a seller to choose his customers. But we are left wholly in the dark as to what the purported new standard is for establishing a "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy [under § 1]."
  He denied that Parke Davis went beyond Colgate. Moreover, he sees the majority's treatment of the trial court's findings as disguised oevrruling of Colgate—"I think that what the Court has really done here is to throw the Colgate doctrine into discard." He concludes: "It is surely the emptiest of formalisms to profess respect for Colgate and eviscerate it in application.'
caption: Justice Harlan
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "150", "Image YResolution": "150", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image ExifOffset": "90"}