State of Georgia v. Evans, No. 872
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FRANKFURTER |
| Citation | 316 U.S. 159,62 S.Ct. 972,86 L.Ed. 1346 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 872 |
| Parties | STATE OF GEORGIA v. EVANS et al |
v.
EVANS et al.
Page 160
Mr. Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Mr. Edwin W. Moise, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondents.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Complaining that the respondents had combined to fix prices and suppress competition in the sale of asphalt in violation of the Sherman Law, the State of Georgia, which each year purchases large quantities of asphalt for use in the construction of public roads, brought this suit to recover treble damages under § 7 of that Act, 26 Stat. 209, 210, 15 U.S.C. § 15, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15. According to that section, 'Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any district court of the United States * * *, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained * * *.' Section 8 provides that 'the word 'person', or 'persons', wherever used in this act (sections 1—7 and 15 of this title) shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under the authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.' 26 Stat. 209, 210, 15 U.S.C. § 7, 15 U.S.C.A. § 7.
Page 161
The District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the State of Georgia is not a 'person' under § 7 of the Act. Deeming the question controlled by United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment. 123 F.2d 57. The importance of the question in the enforcement of the Sherman Law is attested by the fact that thirty-four states, as friends of the Court, supported Georgia's request that the decision be reviewed on certiorari. And so we brought the case here. 315 U.S. 792, 62 S.Ct. 796, 86 L.Ed. —-.
The only question in the Cooper case was 'whether, by the use of the phrase 'any person', Congress intended to confer upon the United States the right to maintain an action for treble damages against a violator of the Act.' 312 U.S. at page 604, 61 S.Ct. at page 743, 85 L.Ed. 1071. Emphasizing that the United States had chosen for itself three potent weapons for enforcing the Act, namely, criminal prosecution under §§ 1, 2, and 3, injunction under § 4, and seizure of property under § 6, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1—4, 6, the Court concluded that Congress did not also give the United States the remedy of a civil action for damages. This interpretation was drawn from the structure of the Act, its legislative history, the practice under it, and past judicial expressions. It was not held that the word 'person', abstractly considered, could not include a governmental body. Whether the word 'person' or 'corporation' includes a State or the United States depends upon its legislative environment. State of Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 370, 54 S.Ct. 725, 727, 78 L.Ed. 1307. The Cooper case recognized that 'there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
European Community v. Rjr Nabisco, Inc., No. 00-CV-06617.
...that Congress intended to prevent foreign governments injured by racketeering from seeking redress under RICO. Cf. Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 (1942) (holding that states have the ability to bring suit under the treble damages civil action provision of antitr......
-
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., No. 15626
...the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." 6 See also, State of Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 7 It is unnecessary for us to consider whether the broad terms of the statute should be narrowed by construing § ......
-
INTERN. ASS'N OF MACHINISTS v. ORG'N OF PETROLEUM, No. 78-5012-AAH (SX).
...and it authorizes suits under it by persons and corporations (§ 15). A state may maintain a suit for damages under it, Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 but the United States may not sue for damages, United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.E......
-
Employment Development Dept. v. U.S. Postal Service, Nos. 80-5694
...in the sense the Supreme Court used those terms, since they do not take away remedies previously available. 5 Cf. Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 162, 62 S.Ct. 972, 974, 86 L.Ed. 1346 (1942) ("any person," as used in Sec. 7 of Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, includes states); Chat......
-
European Community v. Rjr Nabisco, Inc., No. 00-CV-06617.
...that Congress intended to prevent foreign governments injured by racketeering from seeking redress under RICO. Cf. Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 (1942) (holding that states have the ability to bring suit under the treble damages civil action provision of antitr......
-
INTERN. ASS'N OF MACHINISTS v. ORG'N OF PETROLEUM, No. 78-5012-AAH (SX).
...and it authorizes suits under it by persons and corporations (§ 15). A state may maintain a suit for damages under it, Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 but the United States may not sue for damages, United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.E......
-
INTERNATIONAL T. & T. CORP. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., Civ. No. 2754.
...112 A state is a "person" entitled to sue for damages and injunctive relief under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 (1964). See Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346 (1942); Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 261, 92 S.Ct. 885, 31 L.Ed.2d 184 113 See Washington Gas Light ......
-
Federal Pr. Com'n v. Corporation Com'n of State of Okla., No. Civ. 72-832.
...or the United States depends upon the connection in which the word is found. p. 370, 54 S.Ct. p. 727. In Georgia v. Evans, et al., 1942, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346, the Court held that a State is a "person" within the meaning of § 7 of the Sherman Act and entitled to sue for ......
-
The State Action Doctrine and Litigation Against State and Local Governments
...from federal antitrust scrutiny. 7 States acting in their sovereign 1. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 351 (1943) (citing Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 (1942)). 2. See Chapter II.A.2. 3. See id. 4. See id. 5. 15 U.S.C. §§ 34-36 (2006). 6. Specifically, state and local governments and their ......
-
Table of Cases
...F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Cal. 1996), 90 George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v. Paddock Pool Builders, 424 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1970), 94 Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 (1942), 18, 101, 103, 104 Georgia v. Pa. R.R., 324 U.S. 439 (1945), 139, 166, 167, 329 GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Black Hawk, 405 F.3d 876 ......
-
The Domestic Scope of Antitrust, Unadulterated
...§§ 7 (Sherman Act definition section) and 12 (Clayton Act definition section). 30. Pfizer, 434 U.S. at 315-18. 31. Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 (1942). 32. Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 783, 790 (1975) (finding liability for state bar even though it was “a state agency by law.”......