United States v. Diebold, Incorporated

• Decision Date: 14 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. 286,286
• Citation: United States v. Diebold, Incorporated, 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

369 U.S. 654

82 S.Ct. 993

8 L.Ed.2d 176

UNITED STATES, Appellant,

v DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED.

No. 286.

Argued April 23, 1962.

Decided May 14, 1962.

Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

William L. McGovern, Washington, D.C., for the appellee.

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,15 U.S.C.A. § 18.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, 50 S.Ct. 89, 74 L.Ed. 431(1930).The case is here on direct appeal.368 U.S. 894, 82 S.Ct. 171, 7 L.Ed.2d 91.

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...