Steel & Iron Corp. v. Pendleton Bros., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that excessive supply elasticity rendered it “immaterial that consumers do not regard the products as substitutes, that a price differential exists, or that the prices are not closely corre- lated.”
• noting that a private party seeking damages for antitrust violations “must prove that his loss flows from an anticompetitive aspect or effect of the defendant’s behavior”
• “[D]efining a market on the basis of demand considera- tions alone is erroneous.”
• “[A] ‘market’ is the group of sellers or producers who have the ‘actual or potential ability to deprive each other of significant levels of business.’ ”
• “Barriers may still be ‘significant’ if the market is unable to correct itself despite the entry of small rivals.”
• “Of course, conduct that eliminates rivals reduces competition. But reduction of competition does not invoke the Sherman Act until it harms consumer welfare.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).