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 |
Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.
William L. McGovern, Washington, D.C., for the appellee.
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Angle v. Dow
...17 Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1990). 18 Tipton, supra, 965 F.2d at 998 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)). 19 Id. at 999 (quoting Anderson, supra, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513, in turn citing Adickes,......
-
Bluehippo Funding, LLC v. McGraw
...underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). B. Dormant Commerce Clause Analysis The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce with ......
-
EQT Prod. Co. v. Wender
...the underlying facts," if any "must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing" it. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). A party is entitled to summary judgment if the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fac......
-
Gifford v. Rathman
...to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion.'" Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007)(quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)(per curiam)). Nevertheless, the non-moving party "need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable i......
-
The Philadelphia National Bank presumption: merger analysis in an unpredictable world
...197 F. Supp. 902 (S.D. Ohio 1961) (summary judgment granted to defendants on ground that acquired firm was a failing company), rev’d , 369 U.S. 654 (1962) (per curium); cf. United States v. Columbia Steel, 334 U.S. 495 (1948) (rejecting challenge under the Sherman Act § 1 to the acquisition......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion." Id. (citing United States v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). 40. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 495, 405 S.E.2d 474, 478 (1991). 41. Id. 42. 231 Ga. App. 11, 497 S.E.2d 596 (1998). 43. ......
-
Motions
...142 (1970). The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). 9. The instant motion must be denied because ______________________________________ ___________________......
-
Testimonial Evidence
...contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion”) (quoting U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). Further, any inferences about the meaning of the statements must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff at summary judgment (Ander......