United States v. Yellow Cab Co v. 14 8212 15, 1949
Decision Date | 05 December 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 22,22 |
Citation | 70 S.Ct. 177,94 L.Ed. 150,338 U.S. 338 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. YELLOW CAB CO. et al. Argued Nov. 14—15, 1949 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Jesse Climenko, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
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- 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 with obvious care which analyzes the evidence and shows the reasons for the findings. To us it appears to represent the considered judgment of an able trial judge, after patient hearing, that the Government's evidence fell short of its allegations—a not uncommon form of litigation casualty, from which the Government is no more immune than others.
Only last term we accepted the view then advanced by the Government that for triers of fact totally to reject an opposed view impeaches neither their impartiality nor the propriety of their conclusions. We said, * * *'National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 1285.
Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides among other things: 'Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.'
Findings as to the design, motive and intent with which men act depend peculiarly upon the credit given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp.
...another so long as their very corporate existence and structure do not violate the antitrust laws per se (United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150; United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. 495, 523, 527, 68 S.Ct. 1107, 92 L.Ed. 1533, 1551, 1554.) Since ......
-
State v. Petric
...views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949) ; see also Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (......
-
Gainer v. School Board of Jefferson County, Ala.
...158 F.2d 486, 487. 9 Cleo Syrup Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 8 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 416, 150 A.L.R. 1056. 10 United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 338, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150. 11 Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 1934, 293 U.S. 194, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281; Neal v. State of......
-
United States v. Du Pont De Nemours and Co
...and restrain violations of sections 1—7 of this title * * *.' 15 U.S.C. § 4, 15 U.S.C.A. § 4. 3. See also United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150; United States v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 339, 72 S.Ct. 690, 698, 96 L.Ed. 978; United Shoe Ma......
-
Historic Tax Case | Commissioner v. Duberstein
...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......
-
The Split Personality of Likelihood of Confusion: in Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Products, L.l.c., the Eighth Circuit Correctly Applied Clear Error to Likelihood of Confusion
...671 (1944)). 128. Id. 129. Id. (citing Comm'r v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 286 (1960)). 130. Id. (citing United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 341 131. Id. at 293. 132. 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984). 133. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc), ......