Opinion ID: 453199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Monsanto Decision

Text: 24 The Supreme Court, in its recent Monsanto decision, provided us with guidance regarding what proof is necessary to permit the inference of a conspiracy in distributor termination cases. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). In so doing, the Court resolved what had been a significant split among the circuits. 12 The Court held that a conspiracy is not established by proof that a manufacturer terminated a distributor following, or even in response to, complaints by other dealers. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1470, 79 L.Ed.2d at 785. The Court determined that something more than evidence of complaints is needed. There must be evidence which tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and nonterminated distributors were acting independently. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1471, 79 L.Ed.2d at 785. The plaintiff must present direct or circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the manufacturer and others had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective'. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1471, 79 L.Ed.2d at 786 (quoting Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105, 111 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 1981, 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981) ). 13