Vendo Company v. Corporation

• Decision Date: 23 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-156,LEKTRO-VEND,76-156
• Citation: 98 S.Ct. 702,54 L.Ed.2d 659,434 U.S. 425
• Parties: VENDO COMPANY v. CORPORATION et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

434 U.S. 425

98 S.Ct. 702

54 L.Ed.2d 659

VENDO COMPANY

v LEKTRO-VEND CORPORATION et al.

No. 76-156.

Jan. 23, 1978.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has filed a motion "for clarification of mandate" in this case, and respondents have filed a memorandum in answer to petitioner's motion.^* We decided this case last Term on June 29, 1977, 433 U.S. 623, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009; Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered a plurality opinion for himself, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice POWELL; and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered an opinion concurring in the result for himself and The Chief Justice. While these opinions did not agree in their reasoning, each of them concluded that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 545 F.2d 1050, which had in turn affirmed the issuance of an injunction by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 403 F.Supp. 527, should be reversed. Mr. Justice STEVENS, delivered a dissenting opinion for himself, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice WHITE, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL. The dissenting Members of the Court would have affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The judgment of the Court, using language customary in such documents, ordered "that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court." On August 19, 1977, the Court of Appeals in turn entered an order remanding the case to the District Court "for further proceedings, in conformity with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court rendered on June 29, 1977."

A timely petition for rehearing was filed in this Court, contending, inter alia :

"The Concurring Opinion . . . was explicitly based on the false assumption that 'only one state-court proceeding was involved in this case.' The Concurring Opinion states that 'the District Court failed properly to apply the California Motor Transport rule' because

" 'The court believed that it was enough that Vendo's activities in the single state-court proceeding involved in this case were not genuine attempts to use the state adjudicative process legitimately' [433 U.S., at 645, 97 S.Ct., at 2894].

"That interpretation of the District Court's findings is erroneous."

This petition for rehearing was denied on October 3, 1977. 434 U.S. 881, 98 S.Ct. 242, 54 L.Ed.2d 164.

Meanwhile, respondents took the position in the District Court that the injunction which it had issued continued to be binding in spite of this Court's decision, and petitioner therefore filed a motion in the District Court asking that the pre- liminary injunction previously issued be formally dissolved. The District Court has thus far declined to dissolve the injunction, and petitioner asserts that it has expressed the view that the preliminary injunction is still in effect until dissolved by that court, and any action by petitioner to collect its state-court judgments would risk contempt.

Respondents' memorandum in answer to petitioner's motion for clarification of judgment states, correctly we believe, that "[i]n effect, Vendo's Motion for Clarification is a petition for this Court to mandamus the District Court to grant Vendo's Motion to Dissolve." Respondents contend that the District Court was not required by the opinions and judgment of this Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction which it had earlier issued, but that the District Court should be permitted to decide Vendo's motion to dissolve before Vendo can appeal.

Respondents' memorandum in this Court sets forth their contentions made to the District Cou t after remand as to why the injunction should not be dissolved. These contentions are: (1) further findings of fact which are warranted by the record should be made in support of the injunction; (2) a finding of grave abuse of the state courts by Vendo, in seeking to further the precise conduct prescribed by the antitrust laws, is fully warranted by the record and should be made in...