Connection lost
Server error
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a group boycott by manufacturers and a retailer against a competing retailer is a per se violation of the Sherman Act, even if it only harms one business and doesn’t demonstrably affect overall market prices or choices.
Legal Significance: This case established that group boycotts are per se illegal under the Sherman Act, meaning harm to competition is presumed and no proof of actual public injury or unreasonable effect is required.
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Klor’s, Inc., a retail appliance store, alleged that Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., a competing department store chain, conspired with ten national appliance manufacturers and their distributors. The conspiracy involved either refusing to sell to Klor’s or selling to it only at discriminatory prices and unfavorable terms. Klor’s claimed this conduct violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The defendants did not dispute these allegations for summary judgment purposes but argued that since numerous other retailers sold competing appliances nearby, there was no public injury because price, quantity, or quality offered to the public was not affected. The District Court granted summary judgment, finding the dispute a ‘purely private quarrel’ not amounting to a ‘public wrong’ under the Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a Sherman Act violation requires conduct by which the public is or conceivably may be ultimately injured, which it found lacking.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a concerted refusal by manufacturers and distributors to deal with a retailer, orchestrated by a competing retailer, constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act even if the public still has access to competing goods and there is no showing of an effect on overall market prices, quantity, or quality?
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that the alleged Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehender
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a concerted refusal by manufacturers and distributors to deal with a retailer, orchestrated by a competing retailer, constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act even if the public still has access to competing goods and there is no showing of an effect on overall market prices, quantity, or quality?
Conclusion
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. firmly established that group boycotts are Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
Legal Rule
Group boycotts, or concerted refusals by traders to deal with other traders, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occa
Legal Analysis
The Court, per Justice Black, reasoned that group boycotts fall into a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A group boycott (a concerted refusal to deal) is a *per
