Document: 346 U.S. 537 74 S.Ct. 257 98 L.Ed. 273 THEATRE ENTERPRISES, Inc.v.PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP. et al. No. 19. Argues Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 1953. Decided Jan. 4, 1954. Messrs. Philip B. Perlman, Holmes Baldridge, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Bruce Bromley, Ferdinand Pecora, New York City, respondents. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner brought this suit treble damages an injunction under §§ 4 16 Clayton Act,1 alleging that respondent motion picture producers distributors2 had violated antitrust laws3 by conspiring to restrict 'first-run'4 pictures downtown Baltimore theatres, thus confining its suburban theatre subsequent runs unreasonable 'clearances.'5 After hearing evidence a jury returned general verdict The Court Appeals Fourth Circuit affirmed judgment based on verdict. 201 F.2d 306. We granted certiorari. 345 963, 73 948. 2 now urges, as it did in Appeals, trial judge should have directed favor submitted only question amount damages. Alternatively, petitioner claims erred inadequately instructing scope effect decrees United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., Government's prior equity against respondents.6 think both contentions are untenable. 3 contains complete summary presented jury. need not recite again. It is sufficient note owns operates Crest Theatre, located neighborhood shopping district some six miles from center Baltimore, Maryland. Crest, possessing most modern improvements appointments, opened February 26, 1949. Before after opening, petitioner, through president, respeatedly sought obtain first-run features theatre. approached each separately, initially requesting exclusive first-runs, later asking first-runs 'day date' basis.7 But respondents uniformly rebuffed petitioner's efforts adhered established policy restricting eight theatres. Admittedly there no direct illegal agreement between conspiracy charged independent exhibitors who account 63% exhibitions. various advanced much same reasons denying offers. Among other they asserted day date normally noncompeting Since 'substantial competition' with arrangment would be economically unfeasible. And even if wished grant such license, exhibitor waive his clearance rights over agree simultaneous showing. As result, were receive license one. However, unsound because theatre, small center, served limited public transportation facilities; and, drawing area less than one-tenth cannot compare those easily accessible theatres power draw patrons. Hence offer far greater opportunities widespread advertisement exploitation newly released features, which thought necessary maximize overall return well first-runs. respondents, light these conditions, attacked guaranteed offers one occurred during trial, being made good faith. Respondents Loew's Warner refused owned three receiving their product. crucial whether respondents' conduct toward stemmed decision or agreement, tacit express. To sure, business behavior admissible circumstantial fact finder may infer agreement. Interstate Circuit, Inc. States, 1939, 306 208, 59 467, 83 610; Masonite Corp., 1942, 316 265, 62 1070, 86 1461; Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 1944, 321 707, 64 805, 88 1024; American Tobacco Co. 1946, 328 781, 66 1125, 90 1575; 1948, 334 131, 68 915, 92 1260. has never held proof parallel conclusively establishes or, phrased differently, itself constitutes Sherman Act offense. Circumstantial consciously beavy inroads into traditional judicial attitude conspiracy;8 but 'conscious parallelism' yet read out entirely. Realizing this, attempts bolster argument urging conscious unanimity action 'measured background findings case.' In words, since conspired case impose uniform system clearances without adequate explanation sustain them reasonable restraints trade, use device present legally equated conspiracy. decrees, admissible, prima facie covering existing period involved. Alone conjunction form basis Here denied existence any collaboration addition introduced local conditions surrounding operation which, contended, precluded successful house. They also faith attributed individual motivated desire maximum revenue. This evidence, together testimony explanatory nature, raised issues requiring submit issue 5 next contends judge, when jury, failed give weight decrees. admitted pursuant § Act,9 provides final decree rendered defendant laws 'shall proceeding party said all matters respecting estoppel parties thereto * *.' Exercising discretion choose precise manner explaining jury,10 instructed that: 6 '* (T)hese defendants had, at time previous opening restraint trade violation Anti-Trust laws, themselves first run establishing certain numerous places throughout States. Thus, proven facts, I instruct you, become case, plaintiff support claim what done within prohibition earlier evidence. There was before factual situation you respect Therefore, still order recover, prove your satisfaction, credibel defendants, them, keep exhibitions plaintiff, unreasonable. 7 These instructions, argues, 'so superficial so deprive benefits conferred upon it' 5. 8 agree. instructed, effect, alone could recovery petitioner; additional required relate presumed claimed damage period. clear. rest findings, nor particular concerning restrictions theatres; nub plaintiff's claim. involved found exist 195, enjoined June 25, 1948;11 alleged here involves running 1949 March 1950. Indeed, relevancy instant slight. pass contention entitled benefit merely hold gave it. 9 Affirmed. 10 BLACK reverse, judge's charge burden resting deprived large part intended afforded provision Act. 11 DOUGLAS withdrew submission took decision. 38 Stat. 731, 737, 15 U.S.C. 15, U.S.C.A. 26. are: Film Distributing RKO Radio Twentieth Century-Fox Universal Exchanges, Artists Bros. Pictures Management Columbia Corp. Sections Act, 26 209, amended, 2, 730, 13, 13. dropped allegation violation. 'Runs successive feature given area, exhibition arear, second-run subsequent, 144—145, 6, 923, 'A time, usually stipulated contracts, must elapse specified theatres.' 144, D.C.1946, F.Supp. 323; Ic., 70 53, reversed remanded part, 1260; Id., D.C.1949, 85 881, Fox 1950, 339 974, 1032, 94 1380. A 'day-and-date' means two exhibit time. Had request been granted, exhibited simultaneously. Rahl, Conspiracy Laws, 44 Ill.L.Rev. 743 (1950). 16, 16; Note, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 1400 (1952). Emich Motors General 1951, 340 558, 71 408, 95 534; 61 Yale L.J. 417 1946 three-judge District inter alia, clearances. stayed Reed pending appeal stay expired, own terms, May 3, 1948. decision, remanding further consideration, way altered lower court's 144—148, 885, 897. Hence, injunctive provisions left intact. Following Court's mandate entered

Category: 7