Interstate Circuit v. United States Paramount Pictures Distributing Co v. Same
| Decision Date | 25 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | 710,Nos. 709,s. 709 |
| Citation | 82 L.Ed. 1146,58 S.Ct. 768,304 U.S. 55 |
| Parties | INTERSTATE CIRCUIT. Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES. PARAMOUNT PICTURES DISTRIBUTING CO., Inc., et al. v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas.
Mr. George S. Wright, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants Interstate Circuit and others.
Thomas D. Thacher, of New York City, for appellants Paramount Picture Distributing Co. and others.
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for the United States.
The Government brought this suit for an injunction against the carrying out of an alleged conspiracy, in restraint of interstate commerce, between distributors and exhibitors of motion picture films. The restraint was alleged to consist in provisions in license agreements which prevented any 'feature picture' of the distributors, which had been shown 'first-run' in a theater of the defendant exhibitor at an admission price of 40 cents or more, from thereafter being exhibited in the same locality at an admission price of less than 25 cents or on the same program with another feature picture.
The evidence was presented by an agreed statement of certain facts and by oral testimony on behalf of each party. The District Court entered a final decree adjudging that in making the restrictive agreements the distributors had engaged in a conspiracy with the exhibitor, Interstate Circuit, Inc., and its officers in violation of the Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and granting a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the restrictions. 20 F.Supp. 868. The case comes here on direct appeal. Acts of Feb. 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, as amended 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 28, 29; February 13, 1925, c. 229, § 1, 28 U.S.C. § 345, 28 U.S.C.A. § 345.
Equity Rule 70 1/2, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, provides: 'In deciding suits in equity, including those required to be heard before three judges, the court of first instance shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon; * * *
'Such findings and conclusions shall be entered of record and, if an appeal is taken from the decree, shall be included by the clerk in the record which is certified to the appellate court under rules 75 and 76.'
The District Court did not comply with this rule. The court made no formal findings. The court did not find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law as the rule required. The statements in the decree that in making the restrictive agreements the parties had engaged in an illegal conspiracy were not ultimate conclusions and did not dispense with the necessity of properly formulating the underlying findings of fact.
The opinion of the court was not a substitute for the required findings. A discussion of portions of the evidence and the court's reasoning in its opinion do not constitute the special and formal findings by which it is the duty of the court appropriately and specifically to determine all the issues which the case presents. This is an essential aid to the appellate court in reviewing an equity case, Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U.S. 82, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 717, and cases cited, and compliance with the rule is particularly important...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
...change and, so far as I have been able to learn, without criticism, until the ruling by the Supreme Court, during this trial, in the Interstate Circuit case, Interstate Circuit v. United States, 304 U.S. 55, 58 S.Ct. 768, 82 L.Ed. Under the rule as enforced in this court prior to the Inters......
-
Keller v. Brooklyn Bus Corporation
...fact. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 479-480, 62 S.Ct. 344, 86 L.Ed. ___; Interstate Circuit, Inc., v. United States, 304 U.S. 55, 58 S.Ct. 768, 82 L. Ed. 1146; Matton Oil Transfer Corp. v. The Dynamic, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 999, 1001; United States v. Forness, 2 Cir.......
-
Interstate Circuit v. United States Paramount Pictures Distributing Co v. Same
...to state findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Equity Rule 70 1/2, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723. 304 U.S. 55, 58 S.Ct. 768, 82 L.Ed. 1146. The case is now before us on findings of the District Court specifically stating that appellants did in fact agree with each other......
-
Western Pac. RR Corp. v. Western Pac. R. Co.
...in their favor for their costs of suit." Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106; Interstate Circuit v. United States, 304 U.S. 55, 56, 58 S.Ct. 768, 82 L.Ed. 1146; Kelley v. Everglades District, 319 U.S. 415, 420, 421, 63 S.Ct. 1141, 87 L.Ed. 2 The opinion of Septembe......
-
Table of Cases
...Norcent Tech. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs., 2007 WL 4976364 (C.D. Cal. 2007), 197 Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 304 U.S. 55 (1938), 22 Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939), 14 , 20, 22 , 23 , 24 , 38 InterVest, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 340 F.3d 144 (3......
-
What Constitutes a Conspiracy?
...because the trial court had not made specific findings of fact and conclusions of l aw. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 304 U.S. 55 (1938). 17 . 306 U.S. at 221. 18 . Id. What Constitutes A Conspiracy? 23 was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the ......
-
Inferring Agreement in Hub-And-Spoke Conspiracies
...joint assurance that all would do so. 100 United States v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 868, 873 (N.D. Tex. 1937), set aside by 304 U.S. 55 (1938). “[I]n the making of these particular contracts neither of their competitors were present . . . .” Id. Interstate Circuit describes the......