Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

538 F.2d 85

Docket No. 75-1635.

Alphin v. Henson

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 4, 1975.

Decided May 17, 1976.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1976-05-17

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1987

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

3 counsel of record

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County · 80 F. Supp. 888 - Alden-Rochelle, Inc. v. American Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1976-05-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Carl W. Schwarz, Washington, D. C. (Metzger, Noble, Schwarz & Kempler; Robert M. Beckman, Frank Kingston Smith, Beckman & Smith, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.

¶2George J. Goldsborough, Jr., Easton, Md., and (Broughton M. Earnest, Easton, Md., on brief), for appellees Richard Henson and Henson Aviation, Inc.

¶3*86(Robert E. Kuczynski, Daniel W. Moylan and William P. Nairn, Hagerstown, Md., on brief), for appellee The City of Hagerstown.

¶4Before WINTER, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and MERHIGE, District Judge.*

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7T. S. Alphin and Alphin Aircraft, Inc., instituted this action against Richard Henson and Henson Aviation, Inc., together with the City of Hagerstown, Maryland, charging the defendants with violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. The plaintiffs sought damages as well as injunctive relief.

¶8The district court found that Henson had attempted to monopolize and granted injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act,1 but concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had suffered any injury as a result of Henson’s conduct and declined to award damages under Section 4 of the Act.2 The court granted the plaintiffs’ prayer for costs but refused their request for attorneys’ fees, and the sole issue raised on this appeal is the denial of such fees.

¶9We agree with the district judge that attorneys’ fees could not properly be awarded in this case. As stated in Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Warren Concrete Prod. Co. of N. J., 374 F.2d 649, 651 (3 Cir. 1967):

“In a long line of cases the courts have interpreted this section of the Clayton Act not to permit plaintiffs to recover attorneys’ fees unless treble damages are awarded, regardless of whether injunctive relief is granted. Clabaugh v. Southern Wholesale Grocers Association, 181 F. 706 (C.C.Ala.1910); Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County, 23 F.2d 426 (2nd Cir. 1928); Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, I. B. of E. Workers, 51 F.Supp. 36 (D.C.N.Y.1943); Alden-Rochelle, Inc. v. American Soc. of C., A. and P., 80 F.Supp. 888 (D.C.N.Y.1948).”

¶10The failure of the plaintiffs to prevail upon their claim for damages precluded any recovery for attorneys’ fees under Section 4, and the other theories urged upon us for the recovery of such fees are foreclosed under Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975).

¶11The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

¶12AFFIRMED.

/538/f2d/85 · .json · Public domain