Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., Et Al.

• 1958 • 360 U.S. 334 • Warren Court
In the case of Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., et al., 1958, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Safeway Stores, overturning a decision by an Oklahoma court that had upheld a state law prohibiting "loss leaders" - items sold below cost to attract customers. The plaintiff was the Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association and other independent grocers who argued that this practice used by large chain stores like Safeway constituted unfair competition under state...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1958
Docket: 252
360 U.S. 334
79 S. Ct. 1196
3 L. Ed. 2d 1280
1959 U.S. LEXIS 1905
Argued: May 19, 1959

Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., et al., 1958, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Safeway Stores, overturning a decision by an Oklahoma court that had upheld a state law prohibiting "loss leaders" - items sold below cost to attract customers. The plaintiff was the Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association and other independent grocers who argued that this practice used by large chain stores like Safeway constituted unfair competition under state law. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence that such practices were harmful to consumers or competition overall and thus held it unconstitutional for states to prohibit them solely on grounds of protecting small businesses from larger competitors' pricing strategies.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly interpret the Sherman Act. He contended that there was no evidence of predatory pricing or intent to monopolize by Safeway; instead, they were simply engaging in competitive behavior which is encouraged under free market principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the notion that a company should be penalized for its success in achieving economies of scale and passing those savings onto consumers through lower prices. In his view, this ruling would discourage competition and innovation while protecting less efficient businesses from their more successful competitors - outcomes contrary to what antitrust laws aim to achieve.

Opinion written by Justice FFrankfurter
Decided: Jun 22, 1959
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms