Supreme Court of the United States, 1962

United States v. Diebold, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 14, 1962 · Frankfurter

369 U.S. 654; 82 S. Ct. 993; 8 L. Ed. 2d 176; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2303; 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 915; 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,322 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Richard A. Solomon and Irwin A. Seibel., William L. McGovern argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs were Abe Fortas and Victor H. Kramer., Edgar Barton filed a brief for the Mosler Safe Co. in opposition to appellee’s motion to unseal sealed papers.

Cases that cite this one

6830 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Linda Henderson Robert Henderson, III Eric Henderson Dorothy Henderson v. United States (8th Cir. 1992)
Miller v. Ashford TRS Philly, etal (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2022)
RIFKIN v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2022)
Lawana Porter v. California Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 2004)
Allen Greenberg v. Food and Drug Administration (D.C. Cir. 1986)
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams (District Court, D. Maryland 1984)
John Briggs v. Guy Goodwin (D.C. Cir. 1983)
Roger M. Gordon v. Vincent Youmans, Inc. And Miller Music Corporation (2d Cir. 1965)
Pittman v. Hunt Construction Group (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2008)
Michael Mandel v. United States of America and Insurance Company of North America (8th Cir. 1983)
Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd. (3d Cir. 1996)
Doe v. Small (7th Cir. 1991)
Doe v. Small (7th Cir. 1991)
Willie Ross v. Gayle Franzen, James Greer, and Judson Childs (7th Cir. 1985)
Carol Anita Ringrose and Frederick Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., Inc., Sundstrand Corporation and White Consolidated, Inc. (6th Cir. 1982)
Frank I. RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. NATIONAL DISTILLERS AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellee (9th Cir. 1978)
United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission (6th Cir. 1970)
Coronado v. Wynne (District Court, W.D. Texas 2008)
Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2004)
Texasgulf, Inc. v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
Bill Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation (10th Cir. 1980)
Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (10th Cir. 1980)
Irving Reingold v. Swiftships, Inc. (5th Cir. 1997)
Jane Roe v. Jane Doe John Doe (4th Cir. 1994)
Monaghan v. SZS 33 Associates, L.P. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

*655 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.