United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1194.,71-1194. |
| Citation | 450 F.2d 875 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. MICHAEL SCHIAVONE & SONS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty. and L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., were on brief, for appellant.
Kevin M. Keating, Boston, Mass., with whom Joseph S. Oteri and Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
When this case was remanded to the district court, United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 430 F.2d 231 (1st Cir. 1970), it was a new ball game with new ground rules. The district court's ruling on remand that it was too late to go into the dollar amount of the defendant's gross cost was erroneous—an error for which we take some responsibility because of a reasonable, though unintended, interpretation of language in our opinion. The fact is that the expenditure for the office building was not an obligation under the lease. Under our prior ruling, therefore, it was not appropriately included in computing the total purchase price and the amount of the illegal rebate. The judgment entered below, 325 F.Supp. 48, must be modified accordingly.
Further questions have arisen as to whether the court's judgment should carry interest and, if so, whether from the date of the original judgment or that of the judgment as finally modified. 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is clear in providing that "interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court." In arguing that an Elkins award is in reality a "penalty or forfeiture" and therefore should not bear interest, appellee has failed to distinguish between (1) the accrual of interest from the date of final judgment to the date of actual payment and (2) prejudgment interest which may under appropriate circumstances be assessed as an item of damages to compensate more adequately for a proven wrong. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Amirault et al., 202 F.2d 893, 895 (1st Cir. 1953); United States v. United Drill & Tool Corp., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 183 F.2d 998 (1950). A claim of interest on a statutory penalty for the period prior to judgment, in the absence of specific statutory authorization or persuasive showing of congressional intent, falls outside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wachs v. Winter
...provision has been interpreted as mandatory and not within the discretion of the district court. See United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 450 F.2d 875, 876 (1st Cir.1971); Akermanis v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 521 F.Supp. 44, 57 (S.D.N.Y.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 688 F.2d 89......
-
Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
...reading of Sec. 1961 and begin the accrual of interest from the date of the initial judgment. See United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 450 F.2d 875, 876-77 (1st Cir.1971); Smith v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 856 F.2d 467 (2d Cir.1988); Poleto v. Consolidated Rail Corp., ......
-
Foley v. City of Lowell, Mass.
...regard to the elements of which that judgment is composed, even if attorneys' fees are included. 15 See United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 450 F.2d 875, 876 (1st Cir.1971) (deciding that postjudgment interest accrues under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 on a civil penalty incorporated in a ......
-
Brooks v. U.S.
...of America, 509 F.2d 784, 789 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 59, 46 L.Ed.2d 52 (1975); United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 450 F.2d 875 (1st Cir.1971).9 Thus, plaintiffs contend that the judgment of the district court, for the period during the pendency of the......
-
Table of Cases
...1184 Michael Halebian N.J., Inc. v. Roppe Rubber Corp., 718 F. Supp. 348 (D.N.J. 1989), 26 Michael Schiavone & Sons; United States v., 450 F.2d 875 (1st Cir. 1971), 844 Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., 534 F.2d 1036 (2d Cir. 1976), 7, 87 Michelson v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenn......
-
Private Antitrust Suits
...positions following defendants’ manipulation of the silver market). 302. 28 U.S.C. § 1961; United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, 450 F.2d 875, 876 (1st Cir. 1971) (§ 1961’s terms are mandatory and apply “[r]egardless of whether the judgment itself contains a specific award of interest”......