UNITED STATES
v.
DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED
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 Supreme Court reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the Government's antitrust challenge to Diebold's acquisition of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company under the "failing company" doctrine of the Clayton Act. The Court held that genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether the acquired company was truly failing and whether Diebold was the only prospective purchaser, making summary judgment improper and requiring the case to proceed to trial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (575 total)
-
Cordelia Wallace v. P. L. Dodge Mem'l Hosp., 399 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…the light most favorable to the party who opposed the summary judgment motion; accepting his allegations as true and giving him the benefit of the doubt whenever his assertions conflict with those of the moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Gauck v. Meleski, 5 Cir., 1965, 346 F. 2d 433, 436; 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2716 at 430-32 (1973). Under this standard, our analysis of the limited record before us ne…1 / 2
-
Carter v. Blue House Painting & Remodeling, LLC, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…S. at 255; see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 ("[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." (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962))). Ultimately, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party," the trial court should grant summary judgment. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Here, the record taken as a whol…
-
Rosalyn D. Marvin v. Jones (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…“the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). A. The General Release "[W]hen the terms of a written instrument are disputed and rationally susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented 1 At the time, Marvin was facing foreclosure on the property by th…
Previewing 3 of 575 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 280 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1930)
- Drews v. Maryland, 368 U.S. 894 (U.S. 1961)
- Wood v. Georgia, 368 U.S. 894 (U.S. 1961)