Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc
368 U.S. 464 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is generally inappropriate in complex antitrust litigation where the plaintiff alleges a conspiracy, because motive, intent, and the credibility of witnesses are central issues that require a full trial for determination. A series of otherwise legal acts can become unlawful under the Sherman Act if they are part of a conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade.
Facts:
- Midwest Broadcasting Company, owned by Lou Poller, operated WCAN, a successful UHF television station in Milwaukee that was affiliated with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) network.
- CBS, seeking to acquire its own station in Milwaukee, secretly hired a consultant, Thad Holt, to act as an undisclosed agent to secure an option to purchase WOKY, a competing but inferior UHF station.
- The plan was for CBS to exercise the option to buy WOKY if and when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its rules to permit CBS to own additional UHF stations.
- After the FCC rules changed, CBS exercised its six-month cancellation clause to terminate its affiliation agreement with Poller's WCAN station.
- Subsequently, CBS purchased WOKY through the option held by Holt.
- Without a major network affiliation, Poller's WCAN station was unable to compete effectively.
- Poller alleged this situation forced him to sell WCAN's valuable equipment and facilities to CBS at a distressed price, resulting in a significant financial loss.
- A few years after acquiring WCAN's assets and operating in Milwaukee, CBS abandoned its UHF station and affiliated with a new VHF station in the market.
Procedural Posture:
- Lou Poller filed a treble-damage action against Columbia Broadcasting System and others in a federal trial court (U.S. District Court) for alleged violations of the Sherman Act.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case before trial.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action.
- Poller, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with CBS as the appellee.
- Poller then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment for the defense appropriate in a complex antitrust case when the plaintiff presents evidence from which a conspiracy to restrain trade could be inferred, even if the defendant's actions, viewed in isolation, appear to be lawful exercises of contractual rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No. Summary judgment is not appropriate because there is a genuine issue as to material facts regarding the existence of a conspiracy. The Court reasoned that summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and the credibility of witnesses is paramount. Although CBS's actions, such as canceling the affiliation contract, might be lawful in isolation, they could be unlawful if they were part of a larger conspiracy to eliminate competition in violation of the Sherman Act. Poller presented sufficient evidence—including the use of a secret agent (Holt) and the subsequent destruction of the UHF market in Milwaukee—to raise a factual dispute that must be resolved by a jury at trial, not by a judge on affidavits.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. Summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of an unlawful motive, even after extensive pretrial discovery. The dissent argued that the injury resulted from normal business hazards and Poller's own imprudent investments, not from an antitrust violation. In the absence of affirmative evidence of an intent to restrain trade, the mere possibility that a jury might disbelieve the defendants' denials of wrongdoing is not sufficient to prevent summary judgment. The majority's holding, in the dissent's view, improperly discourages the use of summary judgment in antitrust cases and invites vexatious litigation based on speculation rather than evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raised the barrier for defendants seeking to dismiss antitrust conspiracy claims through summary judgment. It established a strong judicial preference for allowing juries to decide questions of motive and intent, particularly when the plaintiff's case relies on circumstantial evidence and the credibility of hostile witnesses. By emphasizing that the 'truth' in such cases is often unclear from affidavits alone, Poller v. CBS ensures that more plaintiffs get their day in court, making it harder for defendants to win antitrust cases at an early procedural stage. This precedent has had a lasting impact, frequently cited to deny summary judgment motions where a plausible anti-competitive motive can be inferred from the facts.
Unlock the full brief for Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc