Opinion ID: 378026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 2 Appellees are ten of the nation's largest manufacturers of paper products. Appellants are relatively small retail businesses which buy paper products and resell them, along with other goods and services, to the public. (Royal is a printer; Haythornewhite operates grocery and liquor stores.) 3 The manufacturers sell their paper products at the wholesale level through their wholesaling divisions or wholly-owned subsidiaries, as well as through independent wholesalers. The divisions and subsidiaries wholesale the products of all manufacturers, not limiting themselves to in-house products. 1 4 Appellants admit that they never bought paper products directly from any manufacturer, except that Royal Printing made purchases from Crown Zellerbach's wholesaling division. However, Royal Printing never bought any Crown Zellerbach products from the Crown Zellerbach division, only products of other appellee manufacturers. 5 The rest of appellants' purchases were made through wholesaling firms. Most of these purchases were made through independents not affiliated with any manufacturer. Royal Printing did buy some paper from Butler Paper Company, a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Great Northern Nekoosa, but it seems agreed that this paper was manufactured by other appellees and not by Great Northern Nekoosa. 2 6 Haythornewhite bought only from independent wholesalers. 7 During the pretrial proceedings the Supreme Court announced its Illinois Brick decision. On the basis of that case, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers on the ground that appellants were merely indirect purchasers of allegedly price-fixed goods.