United States v. Diebold, Incorporated

Decision Date14 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 286,286
CitationUnited States v. Diebold, Incorporated, 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appellant, v. DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
9477 cases
  • Angle v. Dow
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • 1 Junio 1993
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 25 Febrero 2009
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 10 Junio 2016
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 29 Septiembre 2017
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free
9 books & journal articles
  • The Philadelphia National Bank presumption: merger analysis in an unpredictable world
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Journal No. 80-2, June 2015
    • 1 Junio 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 50-1, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT