STRUCTURAL LAMINATES, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS FIR PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's findings of no conspiracy and reasonable restraint of trade were supported by ample evidence and not clearly erroneous.
Appellant alleged a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The trial court found no conspiracy and that the appellee's conduct …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Per Se Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
As stated in the final pretrial order, appellant’s claim is grounded solely on an alleged conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) by appellee and some or all of the members comprising the appellee association. Appellant admits its allegations, if proved, would not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association v. United States, 268 U.S. 563, 45 S.Ct. 578, 69 L.Ed. 1093 (1925); Tag Manufacturers Institute v. FTC, 174 F. 2d 452 (1st Cir., 1949).
In argument and the briefs, appellant concedes that reasonableness of appellee’s conduct and any restraint of trade resulting therefrom is the basis upon which determination of plaintiff’s claim by the trial court, and review thereof on this appeal, must rest. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1910); Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 38 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918); Roofire Alarm Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 202 F.Supp. 166 (E.D.Tenn., 1962), app. Dism. 313 F. 2d 635 (6th Cir., 1963), cert. den. 373 U.S. 949, 83 S.Ct. 1678, 10 L.Ed.2d 704 (1963).
The trial court specifically found (1) conspiracy was not shown by the evidence and, (2) appellee’s conduct, and any restraint of trade resulting therefrom, were reasonable under all of the circumstances existing at the time of the events in question. Our review of the entire record discloses ample evidence supporting both findings of the trial court and no fact finding by the trial court is held clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Fed.R. of Civ.Proc.; Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings, Inc., 356 F. 2d 24, 26 (9th Cir., 1966); Sherrill v. McShan, 356 F. 2d 607 (9th Cir., 1966).
Absence of bad purpose in appellee's conduct was merely a circumstance considered by the trial court, together with a variety of other facts found from the evidence, negativing conspiracy. We are satisfied the reference in the trial court’s decision to intent and purpose, when reviewed in context, does not support appellant’s contention that the trial court considered specific intent or evil purpose to be a prerequisite for recovery by appellant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consol. Metal Prods., Inc. v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 846 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1988)
-
Eliason Corp. v. Nat'l Sanitation Found., 614 F.2d 126 (6th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- The Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. The United States, 221 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1911)
- Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1918)
- Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1925)
- Roofire Alarm Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 373 U.S. 949 (U.S. 1963)
- Cataphote Corp. v. DE Soto Chem. Coatings, Inc., 356 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Lipscomb v. United States, 313 F.2d 635 (8th Cir. 1963)
- Sherrill v. McSHAN, 356 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1966)
- TAG MFRS. Inst. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 174 F.2d 452 (1st Cir. 1949)