United States v. Diebold
369 U.S. 654 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
On a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion; summary judgment is improper if these materials raise a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Facts:
- Diebold, Inc. and the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company (HHM) were competitors in the business of manufacturing and selling bank vaults and safes.
- Diebold acquired the assets of HHM.
- The U.S. Government believed this acquisition would substantially lessen competition in the relevant market.
- Diebold asserted that HHM was a 'failing company' at the time of the acquisition, claiming it was hopelessly insolvent.
- A factual dispute existed as to whether HHM was truly facing imminent financial collapse.
- There was also a direct factual controversy over whether Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM's business, with evidence suggesting other offers may have been made.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government filed a civil antitrust suit against Diebold, Inc. in a federal District Court, the court of first instance.
- The suit challenged Diebold's acquisition of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act.
- Diebold filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the acquisition was permissible under the 'failing company' doctrine.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Diebold.
- The Government (appellant) made a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, with Diebold as the appellee.
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 appropriate in a civil antitrust case when there is a factual controversy over the applicability of the 'failing company' defense, and permissible inferences from the record could support the position of the non-moving party?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate when genuine issues of material fact exist that are dispositive of a legal defense. The district court's findings that HHM was insolvent and that Diebold was the only prospective purchaser were not undisputed facts but were a 'choice of inferences' drawn from the evidence presented. The record contained a 'head-on factual controversy,' particularly regarding whether other offers for HHM's assets were made. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), when deciding a summary judgment motion, all inferences from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion—in this case, the Government. Because inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court were permissible, a genuine issue of ultimate fact existed, making summary judgment improper.
Analysis:
This case serves as a fundamental reinforcement of the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court clarifies that summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial of disputed facts. The decision emphasizes that a judge's role at the summary judgment stage is not to weigh the evidence or choose between competing inferences, but to determine whether a genuine factual dispute exists. This precedent ensures that a non-moving party's right to a trial is preserved whenever the evidentiary record allows for reasonable inferences that could support their claim or defense.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Diebold