Mitchel v Reynolds

Mitchel v Reynolds
Mitchel v Reynolds
	A bake shop
Court	Court of the Queen's Bench
Citation	(1711) 1 PWms 181, 24 ER 347, 45 Digest (Repl) 395, [1558-1774] All ER Rep 26
Court membership
Judge sitting	Lord Macclesfield
Keywords
	Restraint of trade

Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) 1 PWms 181 is decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade, handed down in 1711. It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability. It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason."^[1] William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted Mitchel extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States,^[2] which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court.^[3] The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States 221 U.S. 1 (1911).^[4]

Mitchel is also cited for the proposition that usually harmful practices may be rebuttably presumed unlawful, so that the burden of showing legitimacy is placed on the proponent of the practice.^[5]

^ See National Soc'y of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 689 (1978) (the rule of reason is the "standard for testing the enforceability of covenants in restraint of trade which are ancillary to a legitimate transaction").
^ 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898)
^ Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States. See Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 737-39 (1988) (dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens: "Although Judge Taft was writing as a Circuit Judge, his opinion is universally accepted as authoritative.").
^ Mitchel is also referred to in Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 729 n.3 (1988), in which the Supreme Court declared certain types of price fixing to be potentially reasonable.
^ See concurring opinion of Justice White in United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174 (1963), where he argued that defrauding the patent office should be at least rebuttably presumed illegal under the antitrust laws, citing Mitchel.

[1] See National Soc'y of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 689 (1978) (the rule of reason is the "standard for testing the enforceability of covenants in restraint of trade which are ancillary to a legitimate transaction").

[2] 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898)

[3] Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States. See Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 737-39 (1988) (dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens: "Although Judge Taft was writing as a Circuit Judge, his opinion is universally accepted as authoritative.").

[4] Mitchel is also referred to in Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 729 n.3 (1988), in which the Supreme Court declared certain types of price fixing to be potentially reasonable.

[5] See concurring opinion of Justice White in United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174 (1963), where he argued that defrauding the patent office should be at least rebuttably presumed illegal under the antitrust laws, citing Mitchel.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]