This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ds, petitioner, and the three respondents, manufacture and sell ready-mix concrete. Abraham (P), which had purchased concrete from Texas (D) filed a civil action alleging that Texas (D) and certain unnamed concrete firms had conspired to raise prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. Texas (D) then filed a third-party complaint against Radcliff (Ds) seeking contribution from them should it be held liable in the P action. The Court dismissed the third-party complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It held that federal law does not allow an antitrust defendant to recover in contribution from co-conspirators. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although the Sherman and the Clayton Acts do not expressly afford a right to contribution, the issue should be resolved as a matter of federal common law. The court then examined what it perceived to be the benefits and the difficulties of contribution and concluded that no common-law rule of contribution should be fashioned by the courts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.