STATE v. ROSS Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A retail grocer challenged a Wisconsin “loss leader” statute, which prohibited below-cost sales intended to harm competitors. The court upheld the law, finding it a valid exercise of the state’s police power to regulate economic activity and protect fair competition.
Legal Significance: This case affirms the state’s broad police power to enact economic regulations, even those that set minimum prices, provided they are aimed at preventing unfair competition and are not arbitrary. It also upholds statutory evidentiary presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The State of Wisconsin sought an injunction against the defendant, a retail grocer named Ross, for violating Wis. Stat. § 100.30. The statute prohibits advertising or selling merchandise below “cost,” which is defined as invoice or replacement cost plus a presumptive 6% markup for the cost of doing business. The law’s stated policy is to prevent deceptive advertising and unfair competition. The statute also provides that a sale below cost constitutes prima facie evidence of an “intent… of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor.” The state presented evidence that Ross sold several items below the statutory definition of cost. Ross introduced no evidence in his defense. Instead, he challenged the statute’s constitutionality, arguing it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power. He also argued that the prima facie evidence provision created an unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The trial court granted the injunction against Ross, who then appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a state statute that prohibits below-cost sales made with anticompetitive intent, and which establishes a sale below cost as prima facie evidence of such intent, a constitutional exercise of the state’s police power?
Yes. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the statute is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a state statute that prohibits below-cost sales made with anticompetitive intent, and which establishes a sale below cost as prima facie evidence of such intent, a constitutional exercise of the state’s police power?
Conclusion
The case serves as a strong precedent for the post-Lochner era deference Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
Legal Rule
A state may, under its police power, regulate economic activities to prevent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cu
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the scope of the state's police power Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act, which prohibits below-cost sales intended to harm