Skip to main content
· 8/31/1956

United States v. Continental Can Co.

Citations

  • 143 F. Supp. 787
  • 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3038
  • 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,476

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1964 United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U.S. 441 (1964), was a U.S. Supreme Court case which addressed antitrust issues. One issue it addressed was how should a market segment be defined for purposes of reviewing a merger of companies which manufacture different but related products.

Facts

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")
]

In 1956, Continental Can Company , the second largest producer of metal containers in the U.S., acquired the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company , the third largest producer of glass containers.

The government sought Continental Can's divestiture of the assets of Hazel-Atlas, arguing that the merger was a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act . The government claimed ten product markets existed, including the can industry, the glass container industry, and various lines of commerce defined by the end use of the containers.

Judgment

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Judgment")
]

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found three product markets: metal containers, glass containers, and beer containers. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the government had failed to prove reasonable probability of lessening competition in the markets it had identified.

Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Supreme Court")
]

The Supereme Court ruled that a relevant product market or "line of commerce" does not necessarily mean identical products. Because metal and glass containers competed directly to be used for beverages and baby food, they occupied the same market space, and therefore the acquisition was a threat to free competition.

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: See also")
]

[1]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. "UNITED STATES v. CONTINENTAL CAN CO., 378 U.S. 441 (1964)" . FindLaw. Retrieved June 15, 2026.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

United States antitrust law

Statutes and
regulations

Supreme Court
case law

Other federal
case law

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that an “intention not to perform in the future cannot be established merely by its subsequent non- performance”
  • finding it “premature” to rule on the need to join a third party when the terms of that party’s involvement were not presently before the court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harris

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.