United States v. South Florida Asphalt Company
Citation | 329 F.2d 860 |
Decision Date | 10 June 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 19635.,19635. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. SOUTH FLORIDA ASPHALT COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Patrick M. Ryan, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Robert W. Rust, Thomas H. Anderson, Earl Waldin, Jr., Miami, Fla., Harrison D. Griffin, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for appellees.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the Government from the dismissal of an information charging the defendants with engaging in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in the sale and distribution of "hot mix asphalt" and other materials used in road paving in violation of the Sherman Act1 and the Clayton Act.2
The information alleged that the three corporate defendants are Florida Companies, referred to as "asphalt suppliers", engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of hot mix asphalt and other paving materials. The individual defendants are officers of the three corporations. The paving or asphalt materials are composed of rock, sand, and bitumen, the latter being a by-product obtained in refining crude oil. The bitumen used by the defendants is produced in Venezuela and other places outside of Florida, shipped into Florida by ocean tankers, and emptied into temporary storage vats to await delivery to "asphalt suppliers" such as the defendants. The temporary storage vats are owned and operated by the producers of the bitumen or their terminal agents. The bitumen is owned by the out-of-state producers until sold to the "asphalt suppliers".
Because the sufficiency of the allegations of the information are under attack, we consider it necessary to quote substantial portions of the information:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Baker
...76 See Russell v. United States, supra note 72 at 757-758 of 369 U.S., 82 S.Ct. 1038. 77 Supra note 74. 78 United States v. South Florida Asphalt Co., 329 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1964). 79 Poonian v. United States, 294 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1961). 80 United States v. Offutt, 75 U.S.App. D.C. 344, 34......
-
United States v. Birbragher
...on the face of the indictment. In ruling on this motion, all well-pleaded facts are taken to be true. United States v. South Florida Asphalt Co., 329 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1964); Padilla v. United States, 278 F.2d 188 (5th United States v. Luros, 243 F.Supp. 160, 165 (N.D.Iowa 1965) (Hanson, J......
-
US v. Greater Syracuse Bd. of Realtors, Inc.
...true. United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., 324 U.S. 293, 296, 65 S.Ct. 661, 89 L.Ed. 951 (1945); United States v. South Florida Asphalt Company, 329 F.2d 860, 865 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. R. H. Wright, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 880, 85 S.Ct. 149, 13 L.Ed.2d 87 The I......
-
Hiram Walker, Incorporated v. A & S TROPICAL, INC.
...(eds.), 2 Hoffman, Antitrust Law and Techniques, p. 409 (1963). 6 Thus the District Court's reliance on United States v. South Florida Asphalt Company, 5 Cir., 1964, 329 F.2d 860, was misplaced. 7 The fact that a firm manufactures products which are later sold to distributors in another sta......