Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 1993
Decided June 28, 1993
Full case nameHartford Fire Insurance Company, et al., Petitioners 91-1111 v. California, et al.; and Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Limited, et al., Petitioners 91-1128 v. California, et al.
Citations509 U.S. 764 (more)
113 S. Ct. 2891; 125 L. Ed. 2d 612; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4404; 61 U.S.L.W. 4855; 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 70,280; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4830; 93 Daily Journal DAR 8186; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 638
Case history
PriorIn re Ins. Antitrust Litig., 723 F. Supp. 464 (N.D. Cal. 1989); reversed, 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 814 (1992).
Holding
The Court stated that "it is well established by now that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States."
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajoritySouter (parts I, II-A), joined by unanimous court (parts I, II-A); Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens (parts III, IV)
MajorityScalia (part I), joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceSouter (part II-B), joined by White, Blackmun, Stevens
DissentScalia (part II), joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993), was a controversial United States Supreme Court case which held that foreign companies acting in foreign countries could nevertheless be held liable for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act if they conspired to restrain trade within the United States, and succeeded in doing so.[1]

  1. ^ Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal., 509 U.S. 764 (1993).