Editing United States antitrust law (section)

===Vertical restraints===
{{main|Vertical restraints|Resale price maintenance|Unilateral policy}}

;Resale price maintenance
*''[[Unilateral policy#Development|Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons]]'', 220 U.S. 373 (1911) affirmed a lower court's holding that a massive minimum resale price maintenance scheme was unreasonable and thus offended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
*''[[Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.]]'', 340 U.S. 211 (1951) it was unlawful for private liquor dealers to require that their products only be resold up to a maximum price. It unduly restrained the freedom of businesses and was per se illegal.
*''[[Albrecht v. Herald Co.]]'', 390 U.S. 145 (1968) setting a fixed price, minimum or maximum, held to violate section 1 of the Sherman Act
*''[[State Oil Co. v. Khan]]'', 522 U.S. 3 (1997) vertical maximum price fixing had to be adjudged according to a rule of reason
*''[[Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.]]'' 551 U.S. 877 (2007) 5 to 4 decision that vertical price restraints were not ''per se'' illegal. A leather manufacturer therefore did not violate the Sherman Act by stopping delivery of goods to a retailer after the retailer refused to raise its prices to the leather manufacturer's standards.

;Outlet, territory or customer limitations
*''[[Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co.]]'', 243 F.2d 418, 420 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied, 355 U.S. 822 (1957)
*''[[Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania]]'', 433 U.S. 36 (1977) 6 to 2, held that it was not an antitrust violation, and it fell within the rule of reason, for a seller to limit the number of franchises and require the franchisees only sell goods within its area
*''[[United States v. Colgate & Co.]]'', {{ussc|250|300|1919}} there is no unlawful action by a manufacturer or seller, who publicly announces a price policy, and then refuses to deal with businesses who do not subsequently comply with the policy. This is in contrast to agreements to maintain a certain price.
*''[[United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.]]'', {{ussc|362|29|1960}} under Sherman Act §4
*''[[Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.]]'', {{ussc|465|752|1984}}, stating that, "under Colgate, the manufacturer can announce its re-sale prices in advance and refuse to deal with those who fail to comply, and a distributor is free to acquiesce to the manufacturer's demand in order to avoid termination". Monsanto, an agricultural chemical, terminated its distributorship agreement with Spray-Rite on the ground that it failed to hire trained salesmen and promote sales to dealers adequately. Held, not per se illegal, because the restriction related to non-price matters, and so was to be judged under the rule of reason.
*''[[United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.#Subsequent developments|Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.]]'', {{ussc|485|717|1988}} electronic calculators; "a vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels.  ... [T]here is a presumption in favor of a rule-of-reason standard; [and] departure from that standard must be justified by demonstrable economic effect, such as the facilitation of cartelizing ... "