Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAntitrustClayton Act § 7Finality and appellate jurisdictionMarket definitionClayton Act § 7Expediting Actfinal judgment

Facts

Brown, a major shoe manufacturer and retailer, merged with Kinney, a large family-style shoe chain that also manufactured some shoes, through a stock exchange. The District Court found relevant product markets in men's, women's, and children's shoes, and found a nationwide geographic market for the vertical effects and city-plus-environs markets for the retail horizontal effects. The record showed a trend in the shoe industry toward manufacturer acquisition of retail outlets and increased supply by parent manufacturers to acquired stores, foreclosing independent manufacturers. Brown's own prior acquisitions had increased Brown shipments to acquired outlets, and after the merger Brown became Kinney's largest outside supplier.

Issue

First, whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under the Expediting Act to review a divestiture judgment that required a later plan for implementation. Second, whether Brown's acquisition of Kinney violated § 7 of the Clayton Act because its effect may be substantially to lessen competition in relevant product and geographic markets through vertical foreclosure and horizontal retail concentration.

Rule

A judgment is sufficiently final for direct appeal under the Expediting Act when it disposes of the entire complaint, orders full divestiture, and leaves only the formulation and supervision of implementation details. Under § 7 of the Clayton Act, legality turns on probable, not certain, anticompetitive effects in any relevant line of commerce and any economically significant section of the country; relevant product markets may include well-defined submarkets identified by practical indicia such as industry or public recognition, peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors. In evaluating mergers, courts must examine market shares together with the merger's nature and purpose, the industry's structure and history, trends toward concentration or foreclosure, and other economic and historical factors, because § 7 is aimed at arresting anticompetitive tendencies in their incipiency.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The United States sued in federal district court in Illinois to unwind a merger between North Harbor Glass Works and Summit Window Centers under federal antitrust law. After trial, the court entered a decree ordering complete divestiture, permanently barred future ownership ties between the firms, and directed the parties to submit within 60 days a proposed plan for implementing the divestiture while the court retained jurisdiction to supervise compliance.

Is the decree most likely a final judgment for purposes of a direct appeal under the Expediting Act?

Explanation. The majority adopted a pragmatic approach to finality. A decree is sufficiently final when it disposes of the whole complaint, orders full divestiture, and leaves only formulation and supervision of implementation details. Party consent does not create jurisdiction, but retained oversight of subordinate remedial details does not defeat finality. (Derived from Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (n.d.).)