Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 9, 1967 · Harlan

385 U.S. 37 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Leslie Hodson, Hammond E. Chaff etz, Joseph DuCoeur and Richard J. Archer for appellant., Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Turner for the United States, and Burnham Enersen and Stephen Grant for General Brewing Corp., appellees., Godfrey L. Munter, Jr., for Ray et al., as amici curiae, in support of appellant.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2007)
United States v. Gillette Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1993)
In re Super Prem. Ice Cream Distrib. Antitrust Lit. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1988)
Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1988)
Casey v. Diet Center, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1984)
JBL Enterprises, Inc. v. Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1981)
Nifty Foods Corporation v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. And Pet Incorporated (2d Cir. 1980)
Federal Trade Commission v. Atlantic Richfield Company and the Anaconda Company (4th Cir. 1977)
United States v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1976)
United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1973)
Ricchetti v. Meister Brau (9th Cir. 1970)
Ricchetti v. Meister Brau, Inc. (9th Cir. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion of Philip A. Ray et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would set the case for argument.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.