369 U.S. 654 (1962)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

U.S.

May 14, 1962

369 U.S. 654 (1962)

Summary

holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised

Summary of this case from Fitzgibbons ex rel. Dir. of S.C. Dep't of Ins. v. Atkinson

See 24 Summaries

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

No. 286.

Argued April 23, 1962. Decided May 14, 1962.

In this civil antitrust action by the Government challenging respondent's acquisition of the assets of another corporation as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act, the affidavits, exhibits and depositions before the District Court raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the question whether the acquired corporation was a "failing company" under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 280 U.S. 291, and it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of that doctrine and dismiss the case on a motion for summary judgment. Pp. 654-655.

197 F. Supp. 902, reversed.

Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Richard A. Solomon and Irwin A. Seibel.

William L. McGovern argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs were Abe Fortas and Victor H. Kramer.

Edgar Barton filed a brief for the Mosler Safe Co. in opposition to appellee's motion to unseal sealed papers.

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil antitrust suit by the Government challenging Diebold's acquisition of the assets of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act. On motion of Diebold the District Court entered summary judgment against the Government on the ground that the acquired firm was a "failing company" under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 280 U.S. 291 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U.S. 894.

In determining that the acquisition of the assets of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company was not a violation of § 7, the District Court acted upon its findings that "HHM was hopelessly insolvent and faced with imminent receivership" and that "Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM's business." The latter finding represents at least in part the resolution of a head-on factual controversy as revealed by the materials before the District Court of whether other offers for HHM's assets or business were actually made. In any event both findings represent a choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 56(c).

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Summaries of

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

U.S.

May 14, 1962

369 U.S. 654 (1962)

holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised

Summary of this case from Fitzgibbons ex rel. Dir. of S.C. Dep't of Ins. v. Atkinson

holding "[o]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion"

Summary of this case from Sakai v. Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company

holding that courts do not sit to judge witness credibility on a motion for summary judgment

Summary of this case from INNOMED LABS, LLC v. ALZA CORP.

reversing summary judgment where the nonmovant raised a genuine issue of material fact because at "summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion"

Summary of this case from Codding v. Pearson Educ.

reversing summary judgment where material questions of fact existed as to whether defendant "was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for [the acquired firm's] business"

Summary of this case from California v. Sutter Health System

reversing summary judgment where material questions of fact existed as to whether defendant "was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for [the acquired firm's] business"

Summary of this case from California v. Sutter Health System

examining de novo and reversing a grant of summary judgment because the underlying record did not accord with the District Court's finding of fact

Summary of this case from Gibbons v. N.J. State Police

noting that material in the record must be examined in "the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Kent Nutrition Grp.

In Diebold the Supreme Court held that a case is not suitable for summary judgment where there are undisputed facts from which different ultimate inferences might reasonably be drawn and as to which reasonable persons might differ.

Summary of this case from Mandel v. United States

In United States v. Diebold, Inc. (1962), 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed.2d 176, the Court said that "the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [the materials presented] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion" and where the "materials * * * raised a genuine issue as to the ultimate facts material * * *", summary judgment was improper.

Summary of this case from Gauck v. Meleski

In Diebold, the United States Supreme Court did hold that, "[o]n summary judgment[,] the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion."

Summary of this case from Riley v. Koon

explaining that a court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party

Summary of this case from Chestnut v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co.

requiring inferences drawn from underlying facts be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion

Summary of this case from Jones v. Johnson

stating that inferences drawn from underlying facts should be made in favor of the party opposing summary judgment

Summary of this case from First National Bank of Danville v. System Transport, Inc.

stating that if "contrary inferences" from the evidence might be permissible, summary judgment is inappropriate

Summary of this case from In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.

In United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962), the government charged the defendant with illegally acquiring the assets of another corporation in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on the ground that the acquired corporation fell within the "failing company doctrine."

Summary of this case from Davis v. United States

construing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, upon which Rule 121 is based

Summary of this case from Thoburn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

construing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, upon which Rule 121 is based

Summary of this case from Thoburn v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176, the United States Supreme Court noted that summary judgment should have been denied where a study of the record revealed that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible and thus raise a genuine issue as to the ultimate facts.

Summary of this case from United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission

In Diebold the Court considered the Federal rule from whence our Rules 116 and 117 were copied in near verbatim substance.

Summary of this case from Weeren v. Evening News Assn

In United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, the United States Supreme Court noted that summary judgment should have been denied where a study of the record revealed that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible and thus raise a genuine issue as to the ultimate facts.

Summary of this case from DRAKE v. AIU INSURANCE COMPANY

In United States v. Diebold Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, the United States Supreme Court noted that summary judgment should have been denied when a study of the record revealed that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible and thus raise a genuine issue as to the ultimate facts.

Summary of this case from Clock Decloux v. M M Poultry

Summary of this case from Buermeyer v. Women's Center of S.E. Ct., Inc.

Summary of this case from Grabbert v. General Dynamics Corporation

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Summary

Opinion

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Summary

Opinion

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations