United States v. Diebold, Incorporated
| Decision Date | 14 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 286,286 |
| Citation | 82 S.Ct. 993,8 L.Ed.2d 176,369 U.S. 654 |
| 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 be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your 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......
-
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......
-
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 ______________________________________ ___________________......
-
Reforming Qualified-Immunity Appeals.
...304, 319-20 (1995). (175) FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). (176) See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); U.S. v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655 (177) Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. (178) Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). (179) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982......
-
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......