United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Supreme Court

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

369 U.S. 654, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2303, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 915, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,322

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 14, 1962

Docket286

StatusPublished

Cited by6,934 cases

This text of 369 U.S. 654 (United States v. Diebold, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2303, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 915, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,322 (1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a civil antitrust suit by the Government challenging Diebold’s acquisition of the assets of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act. On motion of Diebold the District Court entered summary judgment against the Government on the ground that the acquired firm was a “failing company” under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U. S. 894.

*655 In determining that the acquisition of the assets of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company was not a violation of § 7, the District Court acted upon its findings that “HHM was hopelessly insolvent and faced with imminent receivership” and that “Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM’s business.” The latter finding represents at least in part the resolution of a head-on factual controversy as revealed by the materials before the District Court of whether other offers for HHM’s assets or business were actually made. In any event both findings represent a choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court-having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 56 (c).

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a civil antitrust suit by the Government challenging Diebold’s acquisition of the assets of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act. On motion of Diebold the District Court entered summary judgment against the Government on the ground that the acquired firm was a “failing company” under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U. S. 894.

*655 In determining that the acquisition of the assets of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company was not a violation of § 7, the District Court acted upon its findings that “HHM was hopelessly insolvent and faced with imminent receivership” and that “Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM’s business.” The latter finding represents at least in part the resolution of a head-on factual controversy as revealed by the materials before the District Court of whether other offers for HHM’s assets or business were actually made. In any event both findings represent a choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court-having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 56 (c).

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 U.S. 654, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2303, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 915, 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-diebold-inc-scotus-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack