Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

369 U.S. 654

82 S. Ct. 993

8 L. Ed. 2d 176

Docket No. 286.

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 23, 1962.

Decided May 14, 1962.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1962-05-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”

quoted by 150 later decisions, including Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation

“inferences to be drawn from the [underlying] facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including 177 F. Supp. 2d 803 - Hackett v. XEROX CORP. LONG-TERM DISABILITY INCOME, Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 3

Relies on Drews v. Maryland · International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

Cited together with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 8–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1962-05-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15,311 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation (1986), Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970)

2,081 federal appellate · 1,765 district · 309 state decisions — followed in 26 states

4.7k01962197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

William L. McGovern, Washington, D.C., for the appellee.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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, 15 U.S.C.A. § 18. 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, 50 S.Ct. 89, 74 L.Ed. 431 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U.S. 894, 82 S.Ct. 171, 7 L.Ed.2d 91.

¶2

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), 28 U.S.C.A.

¶3

Reversed and remanded.

¶4

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

/369/us/654 · .json · Public domain