Norfolk Monument Company v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc, 1040
Decision Date | 21 April 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 1040,1040 |
Citation | 22 L.Ed.2d 658,394 U.S. 700,89 S.Ct. 1391 |
Parties | NORFOLK MONUMENT COMPANY, Inc. v. WOODLAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC., et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Howard I. Legum and Louis B. Fine, for petitioner.
Frederick S. Albrink, for respondent Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc.
William C. Worthington, for respondents Rosewood Memorial Park, Inc., and others.
Jefferson B. Brown, for respondent Gr enlawn Cemetery Park Corp.
Bernard Glasser and Stuart D. Glasser, for respondent Roosevelt Memorial Park & Cemetery Corp.
William H. King, for respondents Jas. H. Matthews & Co. of Virginia and others.
The petitioner, a retailer of burial monuments and bronze grave markers, brought this action for damages and injunctive relief under §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 737, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26 alleging that the respondents had violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the manufacture and sale of bronze grave markers. The respondents—Matthews, a manufacturer of such markers, and five operators of cemeteries (called 'memorial parks') that sell the markers—were charged with having jointly adopted various restrictive devices to prevent, restrict, and discourage sales of markers by the petitioner for installation in the cemeteries. After extensive pretrial discovery, the District Court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no material issue of fact and no evidence of conspiracy. 290 F.Supp. 1. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 4 Cir., 404 F.2d 1008.
We cannot agree that on the record before the District Court a jury could not have found that the respondents had conspired to exclude the petitioner from and monopolize the market for bronze grave markers. As Circuit Judge Craven pointed out in his dissenting opinion, the record disclosed the following conduct on the part of the respondents:
'(1) Despite the unskilled nature of the work, all of the memorial parks refuse to permit the plaintiff to install markers sold by it; all of them insist that the work be done by the cemeteries themselves.
'(2) None of the memorial parks charges lot owners a separate installation fee in the case of markers purchased from the cemeteries.
markers and the same as is implicitly suggested in a pamphlet ('Modern Cemeteries') distributed by Matthews to its customers. All of the memorial parks except Roosevelt are customers of Matthews.
'(5) There is evidence that Greenlawn, Woodlawn and Princess Anne have attempted to dissuade lot owners from purchasing markers from the plaintiff. The affidavit of plaintiff's president states that numerous other incidents of this nature have occurred.
'(6) Defendant Matthews, in its pamphlet 'Modern Cemeteries,' suggests a number of practices which in effect erect competitive barriers to retailers other than the cemeteries themselves.
'(7) Many of these practices have been adopted by the memorial park defendants, as evidenced by affidavits in the record, and by the 'rule books' of Rosewood, Princess Anne and Greenlawn.
'(8) There is evidence of numerous visits to and conferences with the memorial parks by sales representatives of Matthews.' 404 F.2d, at 1012—1014.
The District Court found that the rules relating to the alloy content and installation of the markers were reasonable '(i)n view of the continuing obligation of perpetual care imposed upon the cemeteries, in (their) contracts with lot owners * * *.' 290 F.Supp., at 3. But the business justification for these restrictive rules was disputed by the petitioner, which proffered evidence that the markers required very little permanent care and that, in any event, the funds for that purpose were already provided from another source. The reasonableness of the rules was a material question of fact whose resolution was the function of the jury and not of the court on a motion for summary judgment. The same is true of the inferences to be drawn from respondent Matthews' pamphlet. The District Court dismissed it as without any possible significance because it was a mere 'form book,' which 'specifically points out * * * that it contains suggested standards of fair and reasonable regulations which the cemetery would be advised to adopt but says that '* * * Jas. H. Matthews & Co. is not permitted to make recommendations and suggests that the reader consult his own attorney."* 290 F.Supp., at 3. Again this self-serving disclaimer raised a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles, Civ. A. No. 71-1802.
...System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); accord, Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 704, 89 S.Ct. 1391, 22 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); cf. Olympic Junior, Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 463 F.2d 1141, 1145-47 (3d Cir. 1972). Neverth......
-
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation
...reluctance towards summary disposition of complex antitrust cases. See, e.g., Norfolk Monument Co., Inc. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 704, 89 S.Ct. 1391, 1393, 22 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L......
-
Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 83-1394
...cautioned that summary judgment should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation, Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 89 S.Ct. 1391, 22 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 ......
-
Admiral Theatre Corp. v. Douglas Theatre Co.
...suits, particularly when the action is based on complicated and extensive evidence. See Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 704, 89 S.Ct. 1391, 22 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting,368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); Mo......
-
A Primer On Antitrust Law Fundamentals
...overt, formal agreement among wrongdoers; a mere understanding can suffice. See Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 704 Conspiracy may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. However, where defendants have no rational economic motive to conspi......
-
Summary Judgment in Conspiracy Cases
...on the theory that it had a unilateral right to cancel the contract. 5 1 . See, e.g. , Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Mem’l Gardens, 394 U.S. 700, 704 (1969) (per curiam). 2 . 475 U.S. 574 (1986); see Stephen Calkins, Reflections on Matsushita and “Equilibrating Tendencies”: Lessons for C......
-
Table of Cases
...Presents, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Colo. 2004), 113 Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Mem’l Gardens, 394 U.S. 700 (1969), 201 , 202 North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982), 168 North Miss. Commc’ns, v. Jones, 792 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1986),......
-
Religion and Antitrust
...(1939).64 United States v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333(1969).65 Norfolk MonumentCo.Inc. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens,Inc., 394 U.S. 700 (1969).66 United States v. National LeadCo.,332 U.S. 319 (1947).67 Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969).68 United Stat......
-
The Identification and Proof of Horizontal Agreements under the Antitrust Laws
...Id. at 292-97.45 See Addyston Pipe &Steel, 175 U.S. at 213-18.46 See. e.g., Norfolk Monument Co. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gar-dens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 703-04 (1969) (per curiam) (reversing grant ofsummary judgment for defendants where "the fact that the District Courtappeared to consider dispo......