Radiant Burners, Inc v. Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company
| Decision Date | 16 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Parties | RADIANT BURNERS, INC., Petitioner, v. PEOPLES GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Richard F. Levy, for petitioner.
Mr. Horace R. Lamb, Washington, D.C., and Clarence H. Ross, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
The question here is whether petitioner's complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Petitioner is engaged at Lombard, Illinois, in the manufacture and sale in interstate commerce of a ceramic gas burner, known as the 'Radiant Burner,' for the heating of houses and other buildings. Claiming that American Gas Association, Inc. (AGA), a membership corporation doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and in other States, and 10 of its numerous members1 who also are doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, combined and conspired to restrain interstate commerce in the manufacture, sale and use of gas burners in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, petitioner brought this action against those parties for treble damages and an injunction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.2
The complaint included the following allegations: American Gas Association operates testing laboratories wherein it purports to determine the safety, utility and durability of gas burners. It has adopted a 'seal of approval' which it affixes on such gas burners as it determines have passed its tests. Its tests are not based on 'objective standards,' but are influenced by respondents, some of whom are in competition with petitioner, and thus its determinations can be made 'arbitrarily and capriciously.' Petitioner has twice submitted its Radiant Burner to AGA for approval but it has not been approved, although it is safer and more efficient than, and just as durable as, gas burners which AGA has approved. '(B)ecause AGA and its Utility members, including Peoples and Northern, effectuate the plan and purpose of the unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged herein by * * * refusing to provide gas for use in the plaintiff's Radiant Burner(s) * * * which are not approved by AGA,' petitioner's gas burners have been effectively excluded from the market, as its potential customers will not buy gas burners for which they cannot obtain gas, and in consequence petitioner has suffered and is suffering the loss of substantial profits.
Respondents moved to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court granted the motions, dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for respondents. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 273 F.2d 196. It stated that 'No boycott, conspiracy to boycott or other form of per se violation is established by the facts alleged' (id., at page 199), and that '(i)n the absence of a per se violation the Sherman Act protects the individual injured competitor and affords him relief, but only under circumstances where there is such general injury to the competitive process that the public at large suffers economic harm.' Id., at page 200. It held that public injury was not alleged since '(t)he allegations of (the) plaintiff's complaint fail to establish that there has been any appreciable lessening in the sale of conversion gas burners or gas furnaces or that the public has been deprived of a product of overall superiority.' Id., at page 200. Because of petitioner's claim that this holding is contrary to controlling decisions of this Court, we granted certiorari. 363 U.S. 809, 80 S.Ct. 1249, 41 L.Ed.2d 1152.
We think the decision of the Court of Appeals does not accord with our recent decision in Klors, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741. The allegation in the complaint that 'AGA and its Utility members, including Peoples and Northern, effectuate the plan and purpose of the unlawful combination and conspiracy * * * by * * * refusing to provide gas for use in the plaintiff's Radiant Burner(s)' because they 'are not approved by AGA' clearly shows 'one type of trade restraint and public harm the Sherman Act forbids * * *.' Id., 359 U.S. at page 210, 79 S.Ct. at page 708. It is obvious that petitioner cannot sell its gas burners, whatever may be their virtues, if, because of the alleged conspiracy, the purchasers cannot buy gas for use in those burners. The conspiratorial refusal 'to provide gas for use in the plaintiff's Radiant Burner(s) (because they) are not approved by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. E. Spriggs Co. v. Adolph Coors Co.
...test. (Cf. Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel, 394 U.S. 495, 89 S.Ct. 1252, 22 L.Ed.2d 495; Radiant Burners v. People's Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656, 81 S.Ct. 365, 5 L.Ed. 358; Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741.) Thus, respondent's......
-
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp.
...in a private treble damage action, that plaintiff was damaged thereby are all the law requires.' (Radiant Burners v. Peoples Gas Co. (1961) 364 U.S. 656, 660, 81 S.Ct. 365, 367, 5 L.Ed.2d 358.) A contention similar to that of defendants here was rejected in Klor's v. Broadway-Hale Stores (1......
-
Weiss v. York Hosp.
...Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 1246, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963); Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656, 81 S.Ct. 365, 5 L.Ed.2d 358 (1961); Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959); Fashi......
-
Cemar, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. In USA
...activities falling within per se categories have an anticompetitive effect. See, e.g., Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656, 660, 81 S.Ct. 365, 367, 5 L.Ed.2d 358 (1961) (need only allege a violation and that plaintiff was damaged by The Supreme Court has held......
-
Table of Cases
...207 Quinonez v. Nat’l Ass’n of Secs. Dealers, 540 F.2d 824 (5th Cir. 1976), 179 R Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (1961), 163 Rangen, Inc. v. Sterling Nelson & Sons, 351 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1965), 94 Ransomes Am. Corp. v. Spartan Distribs., 914 F. Supp. 18......
-
Table of Cases
...Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008), 150, 152, 153, 154 R Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (1961), 35, 143, 145 Rambus, Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456 (2008), petition for cert. filed , 77 U.S.L.W. 3346 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2008), 9, 150, 151, 152 ......
-
Table of cases
...Allstate Ins. Co., 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1981), 36, 124, 126, 128, 133, 141 R Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co . , 364 U.S. 656 (1961), 79 Ratino v. Med. Serv., 718 F.2d 1260 (4th Cir. 1983), 62 Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 899 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1990), 32, 34,......
-
What Constitutes a Conspiracy?
...associations have traditionally been objects of antitrust scrutiny.” (citing Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peo ples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (1961) , and FTC v. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)) ); Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 683 (1978) (soci......