October Term 2006 · Docket 05-381

Does Brooke Group apply to buyer-side antitrust claims?

The dispute centers on whether aggressive buyer bidding violates antitrust law.

Official caption
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Pincus argued Brooke Group standards should apply to buyer claims.

    Mr. Shanmugam argued aggressive bidding is usually procompetitive.

    Mr. Haglund argued market realities should trump per se rules.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Weyerhaeuser argues Brooke Group standards apply to buyer claims. Ross-Simmons argues aggressive bidding is procompetitive.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Weyerhaeuser wants the Court to apply Brooke Group standards to buyer claims.

Ross-Simmons wants the Court to reject applying Brooke Group to buyer claims.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Weyerhaeuser argues Brooke Group standards should apply to buyer purchase prices.

Ross-Simmons argues aggressive bidding is usually procompetitive and not a violation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if predatory price cutting alone establishes a Section 2 violation.

Justice Stevens asked if the conduct plus monopoly power establishes a violation.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the legal standard for buyer-side antitrust claims. It clarifies when aggressive bidding violates Section 2. The outcome shapes future antitrust litigation involving input markets.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON