United States v. Yellow Cab Co v. 14 8212 15, 1949, No. 22

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJACKSON
Citation70 S.Ct. 177,94 L.Ed. 150,338 U.S. 338
PartiesUNITED STATES v. YELLOW CAB CO. et al. Argued Nov. 14—15, 1949
Decision Date05 December 1949
Docket NumberNo. 22

338 U.S. 338
70 S.Ct. 177
94 L.Ed. 150
UNITED STATES

v.

YELLOW CAB CO. et al.

No. 22.
Argued Nov. 14—15, 1949.
Decided Dec. 5, 1949.

Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Jesse Climenko, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Page 339

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit in equity, under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2, originally included three charges of violation: (1) conspiracy to restrain and monopolize transportation of interstate travelers by taxicab between Chicago railroad stations and their homes, offices and hotels; (2) conspiracy to eliminate competition for the business of transporting passengers between different Chicago railroad stations; and (3) conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the sale of taxicabs by control of the principal companies operating them in Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis. On a previous appeal this Court held the first of the charges not to state a case within the statute, and that charge no longer concerns us. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218, 67 S.Ct. 1560, 91 L.Ed. 2010. The court below found that the Government failed to prove the second charge and no appeal is taken from that part of the judgment, so that charge has been eliminated. We have held that the residue of the complaint, embodying the third charge, alleges a cause of action within the statute, but only on the expressed assumption that the facts alleged are true, United States v. Yellow Cab Company, supra, 332 U.S. at page 224, 67 S.Ct. at page 1563; but the trial court has found that the Government, at the trial, has failed on all the evidence to prove its case. D.C., 80 F.Supp. 936. The cause is before us by a direct appeal under the Expediting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 29 (Revised Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2101), and not by an exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction.

The first question proposed by the Government is whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact by the District Court. This is the basic issue, and the Government raises no question of law that has an existence independent of it. This issue of fact does not arise upon the trial court's disregard or misunderstanding of some def-

Page 340

inite and well-established fact. It extends to almost every detail of the decision, the Government saying that the trial court 'ignored * * * substantially all of the facts which the Government deemed significant.'

What the Government asks, in effect, is that we try the case de novo on the record, reject nearly all of the findings of the trial court, and substitute contrary findings of our own. Specifications of error which are fundamental to its case ask us to reweigh the evidence and review findings that are almost entirely concerned with imponderables, such as the intent of parties to certain 1929 business transactions, whether corporate officers were then acting in personal or official capacities, what was the design and purpose and intent of those who carried out twenty-year-old transactions, and whether they had legitimate business motives or were intending to restrain trade of their competitors in car manufacture, such as General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and Packard.

These were the chief fact issues in a trial of three weeks' duration. The government relied in large part on inferences from its 485 exhibits, introduced by nine witnesses. The defendants relied heavily on oral testimony to contradict those inferences. The record is before us in 1,674 closely-printed pages.

The Government suggests that the opinion of the trial court 'seems to reflect uncritical acceptance of defendants' evidence and of defendants' views as to the facts to be given consideration in passing upon the legal issues before the Court.' We see that it did indeed accept defendants' evidence and sustained defendants' view of the facts. But we are unable to discover the slightest justification for the accusation that it did so 'uncritically.' Also, it rejected the inferences the Government drew from its documents, but we find no justification for the statement that it 'ignored' them. The judgment below is supported by an opinion, prepared...

To continue reading

Request your trial
397 practice notes
  • United States v. 15.3 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., Civ. A. No. 5051.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 15, 1957
    ...reached. Ferroline Corp. v. General Aniline & Film Corp., 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 912, at page 920; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 338, at pages 341-342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. Obviously this is not an invitation to abdicate the judicial function. Krinsley v. United Artists ......
  • Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., OHIO-SEALY
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 12, 1978
    ...and intent with which men act depend peculiarly upon the credit given to witnesses" by the trier of fact. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 341, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949); Lambert Corporation v. Evans, 575 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. Ohio argues, as a threshold matter,......
  • Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, No. 78-2060
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 14, 1981
    ...(s)uch a choice between two permissible views of the weight of evidence is not 'clearly erroneous.' " United States v. Yellow Cab. Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 B. The Auditor Examination Gonzalez also relied upon statistical evidence in attempting to prove the dis......
  • deLaurier v. San Diego Unified School Dist., No. 75-2096
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 2, 1978
    ...(s)uch a choice between two permissible views of the weight of evidence is not "clearly erroneous." United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 We acknowledge that the factual questions before the district judge were sometimes close and difficult. Com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
396 cases
  • United States v. 15.3 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., Civ. A. No. 5051.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • August 15, 1957
    ...reached. Ferroline Corp. v. General Aniline & Film Corp., 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 912, at page 920; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 338, at pages 341-342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. Obviously this is not an invitation to abdicate the judicial function. Krinsley v. United Artists ......
  • Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., OHIO-SEALY
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 12, 1978
    ...and intent with which men act depend peculiarly upon the credit given to witnesses" by the trier of fact. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 341, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949); Lambert Corporation v. Evans, 575 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. Ohio argues, as a threshold matter,......
  • Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, No. 78-2060
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 14, 1981
    ...(s)uch a choice between two permissible views of the weight of evidence is not 'clearly erroneous.' " United States v. Yellow Cab. Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 B. The Auditor Examination Gonzalez also relied upon statistical evidence in attempting to prove the dis......
  • deLaurier v. San Diego Unified School Dist., No. 75-2096
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 2, 1978
    ...(s)uch a choice between two permissible views of the weight of evidence is not "clearly erroneous." United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 We acknowledge that the factual questions before the district judge were sometimes close and difficult. Com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Historic Tax Case | Commissioner v. Duberstein
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 23, 2022
    ...v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 359 U.S. 227 (1959); Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 475 (1943); United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 341 (1949); Bogardus Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34, 45 (1937) (dissenting opinion). Appellate review of determinations as to whether a transfer is......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT