CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States

1939 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ24884884 ↗
Source-derived summary

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939), is a 1939 decision of the United States Supreme Court finding an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy based on what subsequently came to be known a hub-and-spoke conspiracy. This is a conspiracy in which one actor (the "hub"), such as a supplier, enters into agreements with a number of actors (the "spokes"), such as retailers, who are aware that the supplier is entering into similar agreements with other retailers and that the success of the plan agreed to depends on the retailers all performing in accordance with the agreements. In this case, the hub was Interstate (a motion picture theater chain) and the spokes were various motion picture film distributors that supplied Interstate (and other theaters) with films.

Background

The Government sued two groups of defendants for engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy. One group of eight defendants were distributors (such as Paramount Pictures) of motion picture films, that distributed about 75 percent of all first-class feature films exhibited in the United States. A second group of defendants were dominant theater owners in Texas and New Mexico, and included Interstate Circuit, which had a monopoly of first-run theaters in various Texas cities.

The manager of the defendant theater owners sent a letter to each of the distributor defendants, in which he demanded as a condition of continued dealing in the distributor's films that the distributor (1) require that second-run theaters never exhibit such films at any time or in any theater at a smaller admission price than 25¢ for adults in the evening, and (2) on such films that are exhibited at night, minimum admission of 40¢ and that they shall never be exhibited in conjunction with another feature picture (so-called double features).

Conferences discussing the matter were held between representatives of Interstate and individual distributors.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States” as 1939 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Interstate, Circuit and United.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1939—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Interstate, Circuit and United providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States”, the useful work is to connect “1939 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q24884884. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1939.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States primary sources, Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States archive and Interstate research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.