United States v. Radio Corporation of America, 793.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 793.,793. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry B. Cox, James C. Wilson, and Robert G. Barnard, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Stewart Lynch, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Wright, Gordon, Zachry, Parlin & Cahill (by Thurlow M. Gordon, John T. Cahill, and James D. Wise), Stephen H. Philbin and Bruce Bromley, all of New York City, for defendants.
The Government has moved to vacate the consent decrees which were heretofore entered in this suit pursuant to formal written stipulations of the parties. The motion is based upon the sole ground that in the opinion of the Department of Justice the decrees do not now promote the public interest. The motion is vigorously opposed by the defendants. It presents the question whether a consent decree may be vacated solely upon the ground stated and without proof of any change in circumstances since its entry. A subsidiary question is whether the decrees conferred benefits upon the defendants. If they did, the Government concedes that its motion must be denied. After full consideration I have reached the conclusion that the first question must be answered in the negative and the second in the affirmative. I shall state briefly my reasons for reaching these conclusions.
A consent decree, although based upon an agreement of the parties rather than a finding of facts by the court, is not a mere authentication or recording of that agreement. It is a judicial act (United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 115, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999) and, therefore, involves a determination by the chancellor that it is equitable and in the public interest. The fact that the court may consider the opinion of the Department of Justice to the same effect does not mean that the court has abdicated its power, or failed to carry out its responsibility, to make an independent determination of the propriety and equity of the decree proposed by the parties; for, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Appalachian Coals, Inc., v. United States, 288 U.S. 344, 377, 53 S.Ct. 471, 77 L.Ed. 825, a suit for an injunction under the anti-trust laws is governed by the same principles which are applicable to suits for equitable relief generally. It is fundamental to our form of government that in such suits, as in all other matters brought before them for judicial action, the courts must act "in accordance with their own convictions, uninfluenced by the opinions of any and every other department of the Government." Irvine v. Marshall, 61 U.S. 558, 567, 20 How. 558, 15 L.Ed. 994.
I think it is clear, as Justice Frankfurter suggested in his dissenting opinion in Chrysler Corporation v. United States, 316 U.S. 556, 62 S.Ct. 1146, 86 L.Ed. ___, that the modification or vacation of a consent decree previously entered involves the same duty of the court independently to determine that the action is equitable and in the public interest. Accordingly, I cannot accede to the contention of the Government that the sole basis of the consent decree was the Attorney General's representation to the court that it would provide suitable relief concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nash County Bd. of Educ. v. Biltmore Co.
...'Every court within the United States,' as one would expect, has been construed to include federal courts."5 In United States v. Radio Corporation, 46 F.Supp. at 655, Judge Maris put it:"A consent decree, although based upon an agreement of the parties rather than a finding of facts by the ......
-
International Bldg. Co. v. United States
...Morris v. Patterson, 180 N.C. 484, 105 S.E. 25; Watts v. Alexander, Morrison & Co., D.C., 34 F.2d 66." In United States v. Radio Corporation of America, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 654, 655, Circuit Judge Maris, sitting as a District Judge, held: "A consent decree, although based upon an agreement of ......
-
Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp.
...in 139 A.L.R. 421. 13 United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 115, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999; cf. United States v. Radio Corporation of America, D.C.Del., 46 F.Supp. 654, 655, appeal dismissed 318 U.S. 796, 63 S. Ct. 851, 87 L.Ed. 1161; Utah P. & L. Co. v. United States, 42 F.2d 304, 3......
-
United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.
...Delaware suit to vacate the earlier dispositions and instead to dismiss the suit without prejudice. That motion was denied, see 46 F.Supp. 654 (D.Del., 1942). There was no testimony taken in the 1949 suit here, and no adjudication of any issue of fact or law made. Rather, the case was close......