Document: 364 U.S. 656 81 S.Ct. 365 5 L.Ed.2d 358 RADIANT BURNERS, INC., Petitioner,v.PEOPLES GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY et al. No. 73. Argued Dec. 7, 1960. Decided Jan. 16, 1961. Mr. Richard F. Levy, for petitioner. Horace R. Lamb, Washington, D.C., and Clarence H. Ross, Chicago, Ill., respondents. Charles Weston, the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. PER CURIAM. 1 The question here is whether petitioner's complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Petitioner engaged at Lombard, Illinois, in manufacture sale interstate commerce ceramic gas burner, known 'Radiant Burner,' heating houses other buildings. Claiming that American Gas Association, Inc. (AGA), membership corporation doing business Northern District Illinois 10 its numerous members1 who also are combined conspired to restrain manufacture, use burners violation § Sherman Act, petitioner brought this action against those parties treble damages an injunction States Court Illinois.2 2 included following allegations: Association operates testing laboratories wherein it purports determine safety, utility durability burners. It has adopted 'seal approval' affixes on such determines have passed tests. Its tests not based 'objective standards,' but influenced respondents, some whom competition with petitioner, thus determinations can made 'arbitrarily capriciously.' twice submitted Radiant Burner AGA approval been approved, although safer more efficient than, just durable as, approved. '(B)ecause Utility members, including Peoples Northern, effectuate plan purpose unlawful combination conspiracy alleged herein * refusing provide plaintiff's Burner(s) approved AGA,' effectively excluded from market, potential customers will buy they cannot obtain gas, consequence suffered suffering loss substantial profits. 3 Respondents moved dismiss failure state granted motions, dismissed entered judgment Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 273 F.2d 196. 'No boycott, boycott or form per se established facts alleged' (id., page 199), '(i)n absence Act protects individual injured competitor affords him relief, only under circumstances where there general injury competitive process public large suffers economic harm.' Id., 200. held was since '(t)he allegations (the) fail establish any appreciable lessening conversion furnaces deprived product overall superiority.' Because holding contrary controlling decisions Court, we certiorari. 363 809, 80 1249, 41 1152. 4 We think decision does accord our recent Klors, v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 207, 79 705, 741. allegation 'AGA Burner(s)' because 'are AGA' clearly shows 'one type trade restraint harm forbids *.' 210, 708. obvious sell burners, whatever may their virtues, if, conspiracy, purchasers conspiratorial refusal 'to (because they) therefore falls within one 'classes restraints 'nature character' (are) unduly restrictive, hence forbidden both common law statute. As these classes Congress (has) determined own criteria (is) courts decide case actually occurred.' 211, 709. Burners 'interferes natural flow (and) has, 'nature' 'character', 'monopolistic tendency.' tolerated merely victim (manufacturer) whose so small his destruction makes little difference economy.' 213, 710. By 1, illegal: 'Every contract, among several Standard Oil Co. New Jersey 221 31 502, 515, 55 L.Ed. 619. having prescribed prohibitions, expand them. Therefore, section, adequate show and, private damage action, plaintiff damaged thereby all requires. 6 reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 7 Reversed. Of members were joined defendants, two utilities distribution namely, Light & Coke Company Company; pipeline companies transporting into Natural Pipeline America Texas-Illinois Co.; six manufacturers Autogas Company, Crown Stove Works, Florence Appliance Service, Inc., Norge Sales Corporation, Sellers Engineering Company. Section provides: trust otherwise, foreign nations, hereby declared illegal 15 U.S.C.A. 1. Clayton 38 Stat. 731, U.S.C. 15, states, 'Any person shall property reason anything antitrust laws sue therefor recover threefold sustained 16 737, 26, person, firm, corporation, association entitled injunctive court jurisdiction over parties, threatened

Category: 7