How Do You Spell ADDYSTON PIPE AND STEEL COMPANY V. UNITED STATES?

Pronunciation: [ˈadɪstən pˈa͡ɪp and stˈiːl kˈʌmpəni vˈiː juːnˈa͡ɪtɪd stˈe͡ɪts] (IPA)

The case of Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States is a landmark case in US antitrust law. The word "Addyston" is pronounced /ˈædɪstən/ using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The spelling of this word follows English orthography, with the "a" at the beginning being pronounced as a short vowel sound followed by the "d" and "s" sounds. The stress is on the second syllable, pronounced as "di", with the final "ton" being pronounced as a separate syllable.

ADDYSTON PIPE AND STEEL COMPANY V. UNITED STATES Meaning and Definition

  1. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States refers to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1899. This case dealt with issues related to antitrust laws and the legality of certain business practices. An antitrust case, it examined the legality of a contract made by competing manufacturers of cast-iron water pipes, the Addyston Pipe and Steel Company and other defendants, which sought to establish and maintain prices for their products. The defendants were charged with engaging in a conspiracy to establish prices, restrict production, and divide markets, which violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

    The Supreme Court ruled against Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, holding that the contract made with the other manufacturers was an unreasonable restraint of trade and violated section 1 of the Sherman Act. This case established the doctrine of “conspiracy in restraint of trade” and is a crucial precedent in antitrust law. The decision clarified that horizontal agreements among competitors to fix pricing or allocate territories were deemed illegal under the Sherman Act. It also helped to shape the legal framework for prohibiting anticompetitive practices in the United States.

    The Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States case remains an important legal reference, providing guidelines to courts and regulators in cases involving antitrust issues. It highlights the United States' commitment to ensuring fair competition and preventing anti-competitive business practices that could harm consumers and stifle market competition.