United States v. Grinnell Corp.
- Decided
- June 13, 1966
- Docket
- 73
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,474 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that defendants' control of 87 percent of the relevant market "leaves no doubt” defendants had monopoly power — Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co. (2006)
- holding that central station protective services including automated burglar alarms, automated fire alarms, sprinkler services, and watch signal services constituted cluster market — Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC (2004)
- holding that possession of monopoly power in a relevant market is an element of a § 2 claim — McNeil v. National Football League (1992)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents an important question under § 2 of the Sherman Act,[1] which makes it an offense for any person to “monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.” This is a civil suit brought by the United States against Grinnell Corporation (Grinnell), American District Telegraph Co. (ADT), Holmes Electric Protective Co. (Holmes) and Automatic Fire Alarm Co. of Delaware (AFA). The District Court held for the Government and entered a decree. All parties appeal,[2] the United States because it deems the relief inadequate and the defendants both on the merits and on the relief and on the ground that the District Court denied them a fair trial. We noted probable jurisdiction. 381 U. S. 910.
Grinnell manufactures plumbing supplies and fire sprinkler systems. It also owns 76% of the stock of ADT, 89% of the stock of AFA, and 100% of the stock of Holmes.[3] ADT provides both burglary and fire protection servicesj Holmes provides burglary services alone; AFA supplies only fire protection service. Each offers a central station service under which hazard-detecting devices installed on the protected premises automati [*567] cally transmit an electric signal to a central station.[4] The central station is manned 24 hours a day. Upon receipt of a signal, the central station, where appropriate, dispatches guards to the protected premises and notifies the police or fire department direct. There are other forms of protective services. But the record shows that subscribers to accredited central station service (i. e., that approved by the insurance underwriters) receive reductions in their insurance premiums that are substantially greater than the reduction received by the users of other kinds of protection service. In 1961 accredited companies in the central station service business grossed $65,000,000. ADT, Holmes, and AFA are the three largest companies in the business in terms of revenue: ADT (with 121 central stations in 115 cities) has 73% of the business; Holmes (with 12 central stations in three large cities) has 12.5%; AFA (with three central stations in three large cities) has 2%. Thus the three companies that Grinnell controls have over 87% of the business.
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.