United States v. Otter Tail Power Company
| Decision Date | 22 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-69-Civ.-139.,6-69-Civ.-139. |
| Citation | 360 F. Supp. 451 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Kenneth C. Anderson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Cyrus A. Field, Field, Arvesen, Donoho, Lundeen & Hoff, Fergus Falls, Minn., for defendant.
This case, while affirmed on the basic issue, was remanded by the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration of the litigation issue in view of the intervening decision in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642. See Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 at 380, 93 S.Ct. 1022 at p. 1031, 35 L.Ed.2d 359. Defendant moves for an amendment of the findings to reflect that employment of litigation as shown in the record was permissible under the antitrust laws in the light of California Motor Transport. Defendant so urged in its brief and at the oral argument on the motion held on June 11, 1973. Plaintiff argued that the use of litigation by defendant came within the so-called sham exception of the Noerr doctrine and therefore violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The parties are agreed that there is no need for further evidentiary hearings.
Upon consideration of the arguments and briefs, and upon a reconsideration of the pertinent portions of the record, I find that the repetitive use of litigation by Otter Tail was timed and designed principally to prevent the establishment of municipal electric systems and thereby to preserve defendant's monopoly. I find the litigation comes within the sham exception to the Noerr doctrine as defined by the Supreme Court in California Transport, and reaffirm the Findings and Conclusions previously entered.
The defendant's motion is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Fury
...366, 380, 93 S.Ct. 1022, 1031, 35 L.Ed.2d 359, 369 (1973), rehearing denied, 411 U.S. 910, 93 S.Ct. 1523, 36 L.Ed.2d 201, on remand, 360 F.Supp. 451, aff'd. 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207. Noerr left open the possibility that the political process may be so abused that efforts ......
-
City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co.
... ... FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant ... No. 79-5101-Civ-JLK ... United States ... See United States v. Otter Tail Power Co., 331 F.Supp. 54 (D.Minn.1971) aff'd in ... ...
-
Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.
...this is not an Otter Tail case. Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 93 S.Ct. 1022, 35 L.Ed.2d 359, On remand, 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973), Aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974). Handgards has neither pleaded nor proved that Ethicon engaged in a pa......
-
Premier Elec. Const. Co. v. National Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc.
...at 1030-31, that unless these suits were baseless, "shams", they could not be the basis of liability. See also United States v. Otter Tail Power Co., 360 F.Supp. 451 (D.Minn.1973) (imposing liability on remand), aff'd mem., 417 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974). In order to det......