Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/405/251/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 12:32:49
Document Index: 527800365

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 15', '§ 1292', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 15']

HAWAII V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, 405 U. S. 251 (1972) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 405 > HAWAII V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, 405 U. S. 251 (1972)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 405 U. S. 251
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J.,and STEWART, WHITE, And BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion post, p. 405 U. S. 266. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, J., joined, post, p. 405 U. S. 270. POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The issue presented by this case is whether § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 15, authorizes a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Hawaii filed its fourth amended complaint on February 27, 1969. This is the complaint with which we are concerned. Count one contains a reiteration of Hawaii's claim that, in its proprietary capacity, the State paid an chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In a rather extensive opinion, the court examined the law that has developed concerning suits by a State as parens patriae and denied the motions to dismiss the second count. 301 F.Supp. 982 (1969). Recognizing that the state of the law was unclear, the District Court certified its decision denying the motions to dismiss for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). [Footnote 6] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and directed that the second count of the complaint be dismissed. [Footnote 7] 431 F.2d chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The nature of the parens patriae suit has been greatly expanded in the United States beyond that which existed in England. This expansion was first evidenced in Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1 (1900), a case in which the State of Louisiana brought suit to enjoin officials of the State of Texas from so administering the Texas quarantine regulations as to prevent Louisiana merchants chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
These cases establish the right of a State to sue as parens patriae to prevent or repair harm to its "quasi-sovereign" interests. [Footnote 12] They deal primarily with original chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Like this suit, Georgia arose under the federal antitrust laws. It is plain from the face of the complaint that "[t]he prayer [was] for damages and for injunctive relief." 324 U.S. at 324 U. S. 445. See id. at 324 U. S. 446-447, 324 U. S. 450-451. [Footnote 13] Georgia claimed that the conspiracy had chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The position of a defendant faced with numerous claims for damages is much different. If the defendant chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Thus, § 4 permits Hawaii to sue in its proprietary capacity for three times the damages it has suffered from respondents' alleged antitrust violations. [Footnote 14] The section chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
gives the same right to every citizen of Hawaii with respect to any damage to business or property. Were we, in addition, to hold that Congress authorized the State chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Support for this reading of § 4 is found in the legislative history of 15 U.S.C. § 15a, [Footnote 15] which is the only chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We note in passing the State's claim that the costs and other burdens of protracted litigation render private citizens impotent to bring treble damage actions, and thus that denying Hawaii the right to sue for injury to her quasi-sovereign interests will allow antitrust violations to go virtually unremedied. Private citizens are not as powerless, however, as the State suggests. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Today's decision reflects a miserly approach to the fashioning of federal remedies rectifying injuries to the collective interests of the citizens of a State through chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
So-called "growth," "progress," and "development" are more than symbols of power in modern society; they represent the goal which planners -- private and public alike -- establish and seek to attain. And the State plays an important, at times crucial, role in achieving that goal. [Footnote 2/2] If Hawaii can sustain her allegations by proof, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Injury to the collective will commonly include injury to members of the collective. In that event, damages recovered by Hawaii could not later be recovered by individual entrepreneurs. It might, of course, be shown that the individual's loss for the period in question was distinct from any impact on the collective. Thus, if chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The State of Hawaii seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for an alleged conspiracy among respondents to monopolize and fix prices on the sale of petroleum chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439 (1945), in my view, requires reversal. In that case, the State of Georgia sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court to remedy a conspiracy by several railroads to fix rates on the transportation of goods to and from the State. As noted by the Court, ante at 405 U. S. 259 n. 13, Georgia sought damages in each of the four counts of its complaint -- in its sovereign capacity, as a quasi-sovereign, in its proprietary capacity, and as representative of its citizens. Treating the complaint as a prayer "for damages and for injunctive relief," 324 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"The enforcement of the criminal sanctions of [the antitrust] acts has been entrusted exclusively to the federal government. See 316 U. S. 162. But when it came to other sanctions, Congress followed a different course, and authorized civil suits not only by the United States, but by other persons as well. And we find no indication that, when Congress fashioned those civil remedies, it restricted the States to suits to protect their proprietary interests. Suits by a State, parens patriae,@ have long been recognized. There is no apparent reason why those suits should be excluded from the purview of the anti-trust acts."
324 U.S. at 324 U. S. 451. If that injury would have been a sufficient basis for a damage claim by chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The determinant, then, is whether "property is diminished by a payment of money wrongfully induced." But what was the nature of the injury to property for which recovery was permitted in Chattanooga? Clearly it was nothing more than the added expense incurred by the city's treasury as the result of the antitrust violation. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This is the same sort of interest sought to be protected here. Hawaii's economy, to which tourism and the tourist trade are important, would be particularly vulnerable to injury from a price conspiracy involving petroleum products. In seeking to preserve the economic opportunities of its people, and the tax revenues generated thereby, Hawaii is asserting an interest not significantly different in concept from that involved in Chattanooga. Whether the injury sought to be remedied consists of additional payments from the public purse, as in that case, or the failure to generate additional wealth, as here, the result in either instance is the same -- the government and its population, as entities, have suffered harm to their economic wellbeing. If that harm is characterized "business or property" in one case, then we stretch no traditional property concepts in applying the same label in the other. * chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Finally, this result does not necessarily lead to double recovery. Since Hawaii is, by definition, asserting claims "independent of and behind the titles of its citizens," chanroblesvirtualawlibrary