UNITED STATES
v.
PARKE, DAVIS & CO.

U.S. | 1961-01-23
No. 526
MR. Justice Harlan, with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter agrees, would place this case on the summary calendar for argument, postponing to the merits consideration of the question of jurisdiction raised by the-respondent.
365 U.S. 125 Supreme Court of the United States (1961) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 5 L. Ed. 2d 457 · 81 S. Ct. 433 · 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2132 · SCDB 1960-037
Cited by 12 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that Parke, Davis & Co. violated the Sherman Act and that the company's subsequent abandonment of its illegal sales policy did not preclude entry of judgment on the merits, even though it warranted denial of injunctive relief. The Court established that a defendant's cessation of unlawful conduct does not eliminate the court's authority to adjudicate the violation itself and retain jurisdiction for potential future enforcement action.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

When this case was last here we held that the Government’s proofs were sufficient to show that Parke Davis violated the Sherman Act. However, in reversing the District Court’s judgment we remanded the case with direction to afford Parke Davis a further opportunity to submit evidence in defense in order to refute the Government’s right to injunctive relief. United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U. S. 29, 49. On remand, Parke Davis introduced evidence not to rebut the Government’s proof as to violation but only to show that it had abandoned its illegal sales policy, and that therefore an injunction, being unnecessary, should not issue. On that record the District. Court entered an order denying not only the injunctive relief sought by the Government, but also an adjudication that Parke Davis had violated the law. The present appeal is not from the provision which denies injunctive relief, but from the omission of a provision adjudging that Parke Davis violated the Act. We have examined the record as supplemented on the remand and hold that under our prior order the Government is entitled to a judgment on the merits, as prayed in paragraph 1 of the section of the Complaint captioned “Prayer.” We also hold that the District Court should retain the case on the docket for future action in the event the Government applies for further relief from an alleged resumption by Parke Davis of illegal activity. The order of the District Court filed July 18, 1960, is therefore vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment accordingly.

It is so ordered.

MR. Justice Harlan, with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter agrees, would place this case on the summary calendar for argument, postponing to the merits consideration of the question of jurisdiction raised by the-respondent.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967)
    …jurisdiction over a case on remand under a Supreme Court mandate is foreclosed from reconsidering matters decided by the Supreme Court. E. g., United States v. Haley, 371 U.S. 18, 83 S.Ct. 11, 9 L.Ed.2d 1 (1962); United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 365 U.S. 125, 81 S.Ct. 433, 5 L.Ed.2d 457 (1961); Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. R., 334 U.S. 304, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948); In re Washington & G. R. R., 140 U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 673, 35 L.Ed. 339 (1891); Tyler v. Magwire, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 253, 21 L.Ed. 576…
  • Dart Drug Corp. v. Parke, 344 F.2d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
    …tend to have ay further dealing with Dart. The latter has, however, continued to purchase Parke Davis products from wholesalers. Thus, Dart Drug cannot receive the volume discount on large quantity purchases.” . United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 365 U.S. 125, 81 S.Ct. 433, 5 L.Ed.2d 457 (1961). . The transcript of the oral argument has to be read in its entirety in order to understand the angle of vision from which the District Court became entitled to view it. The following excerpts, although lengthy,…
  • United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation Dist., 330 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1964)
    …involved a state’s “well organized system of regulation.” Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 327, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424. An illustration of a decree retaining jurisdiction for future action is found in United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 365 U.S. 125, 81 S.Ct. 433, 5 L.Ed.2d 457. . The manner in which the court arrived at the irrigated acreage in 1957 is outlined in Appendix I accompanying appellees’ brief. Its determination is based on the testimony and exhibits furnished by the engineers, Jen…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw