Document: 377 U.S. 386 84 S.Ct. 1273 12 L.Ed.2d 394 HUDSON DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant,v.ELI LILLY & CO. Appellant, v. The UPJOHN COMPANY. Nos. 490, 489. Argued April 29, 30, 1964. Decided June 1, Myron N. Krotinger, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Ralph M. Carson, New York City, appellee Upjohn Co. Everett I. Willis, Eli Lilly Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These appeals raise question whether McGuire Act, 66 Stat. 631, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1)—(5), permits application and enforcement Ohio Fair Trade Act against appellant in support appellees' systems retail price maintenance. For reasons stated below, we hold that as applied to facts these cases, comes within provisions exempting certain resale from prohibitions Sherman 26 209, § et seq. 2 two appeals, one involving Co., were considered together courts.1 simplicity state only case. Hudson Distributors, Inc., owns operates a drug chain Ohio. Appellee, manufactures pharmaceutical products bearing its trademarks trade names. sells directly wholesalers makes no sales retailers. purchases brand Regal D.S., Michigan wholesaler. 3 In 1959, Legislature enacted new Revised Code 1333.27—1333.34. Subsequently sent letters all retailers products, including Hudson, notify them Lilly's intention establish minimum prices trademarked pursuant invite enter into written fair-trade contracts. More than 1,400 Lily (about 65% pharmacists Ohio) signed contracts with Lilly. however, refused contract ignored specified prices. formally notified required observe commodities. nevertheless, continued purchase then resell at less stipulated 4 thereupon filed petition Court Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, judgment declaring invalid under State Constitution federal law. answered cross-petitioned Hudson. held unconstitutional Constitution. On appeal, Appeals after discussing legislation, 117 App. 207, 176 N.E.2d 236, reversed trial court entered was not 'in violation nor Unit d States * *.' remanded case 'for further proceedings according law respect cross-petition *.'2 Supreme affirmed3 Appeals.4 174 St. 487, 190 460. This noted probable jurisdiction. 375 938, 939, 348, 11 270. 5 contends which established are authorized by 45(a)(1)—(5).5 Section provides pertinent part follows: 6 'Nothing contained this section or any Antitrust Acts shall render unlawful agreements prescribing prices, when description lawful intrastate transactions statute, law, public policy now hereafter effect 7 reads 8 exercise right action created State, Territory, District Columbia, substance willfully knowingly advertising, offering sale, selling commodity prescribed such person so is party agreement, unfair competition actionable suit damaged thereby.' 9 Before enactment ct, 1951 Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 384, 71 745, 95 L.Ed. 1035, Miller-Tydings 50 693, removed prohibition seq., statute trademark owner, notice, require retailer who had executed Respondents argued since outlawed 'contracts' restraint amendment excepted 'contracts resale' where therefore immunized arrangements maintenance 387, 747. After examining history concluded Congress intended words agreements' be used their normal customary meaning,' id., 388, 747, cover whereby voluntarily agreed bound restrictions. could nonsigners—'recalcitrants dragged heels compelled submit fixing.' Id., 390, 748. that: 10 'It should remembered it laws designed accommodate. Federal regulation give way regulation. When provided both those contracted did not, relaxed respects agreements,' inference strong left noncontracting group governed preexisting law.' 395, 751. Shortly decision, passed Act,6 45(a)(1)—(5). Report House Committee on Interstate Foreign Commerce, accompanied declared 'The primary purpose (McGuire) bill reaffirm very same proposition which, committee's opinion, enact *, laws—including nonsigner laws—with regard interstate constitute Commission Act. reaffirmation made necessary because decision divided Corporation (341 384 (71 745), May 21, 1951). case, six members exempt fair nonsigners. Three apply. 13 ' he end result has been seriously undermine effectiveness and, turn, 45 States. H.R. 5767, amended, restore acts making abundantly clear means let apply totality; is, nonsigners well signers.' (Emphasis added.) Rep.No.1437, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 1—2. 14 authoritative report evinces that, sanctioned act, owner permitted enforce, even nonsigning other retailers.7 Without disputing interpretation argues interpreted courts reaches beyond exemptive terms permitting 'by notice alone' between retailer. emphasizes sustained theory simply acquiring impliedly implied deemed satisfy recently invalidate Union Carbide Carbon Corp. Bargain Fair, 167 182, 147 481 (1958). Whatever merit there may argument logic would set alone without conventional express contracts, present need do consider involve sense Act.8 undisputed show system some 1333.29(A) authorizes establishment through Under circumstances fact construed purposes assessing validity Constitution, regards 'contractor' (or 'implied contractor') rather does control plainly upholds 'any substance' violating seller therefore, cases requisite retailers,9 regardless itself meaning least nonsigner, 'to H.R.Rep.No.1437, 2. Accordingly 16 also can read authorize persons name. contention raises hypothetical issue: affixed goods applying owners. proprietor wholesale distributors whom competes conflicts Court's United McKesson Robbins, 351 305, 76 937. for, noted, sell retailers.10 17 questions raised second amended answer cross-petition,11 Paragraph compels allegedly horizontal price-fixing properly before us. They pending unresolved Pleas, County. Hudson's remaining presented resolution appeal; they concern issues alleged interpretations Asbury Hospital Cass 326 213—214, 61, 64—65, 90 6; Alabama Federation Labor, Local No. 103, Broth. Carpenters Joiners America McAdory, 325 450, 470 471, 65 1384, 1393—1394, 89 1725. 18 fixing moving commerce be, absent approval Congress, clearly illegal Dr. Miles Medical John D. Park Sons 220 373, 31 376, 55 502. 'Fixing like types fixing, per se.' supra, 386, 746. approved statutes sanctioning schemes involved here. Whether good permit matter decide. Where statutory language legislative indicate must upheld. We affirm judgments 19 Affirmed. 20 HARLAN, dissenting. 21 I dismiss lack well-established principles, review here 'final,' 28 s 1257,1 assuming decides have Ohio.2 22 appellant, petitions declaratory Act3 soon went effect.4 appellees, Lilly, answers cross-petitions alleging refusal comply seeking injunctive relief damages. Pursuant stipulation parties procedure, issue judgment—the 'general' Act—was tried separately advance factual legal responses thereto. posture, decided every level, proceeded courts. County Consitution, an delegation power. reversed, cause affirmed. 23 Although distinction final nonfinal judgments, jurisdiction, 'faint faltering times,' Republic Natural Gas Oklahoma, 334 62, 69, 68 972, 977, 92 1212, disappeared altogether. nature maintaining repeatedly stated. To reviewed Court, 'final effective determination litigation merely interlocutory intermediate steps therein. It word court.' Market Street Ry. Railroad Comm'n, 324 548, 551, 770, 773, 1171. 'must fully determining rights Gospel Army Los Angeles, 331 543, 546, 67 1428, 1430, 91 1662. See also, e.g., Mower Fletcher, 114 127, 128, 799, 29 117; Cobbledick States, 309 323, 324—325, 60 540, 541, 783; Department Banking, Nebraska Pink, 317 264, 267—268, 63 234, 235, 87 254; Pope Atlantic Coast Line R. 345 379, 381—382, 73 749, 750—751, 97 1094. 24 'Since establishment, marked characteristic judicial appeal until first instance. requirement considerations generally applicable administration. avoids mischief economic waste delayed justice. Only few situations, rulings carry serious consequences, departure finality appellate prerequisite derives added force jurisdiction invoked upset court. Here realm potential conflict different governments. technicalities easily scorned. important factor smooth working our system.' Radio Station WOW, Inc. Johnson, 120, 123—124, 1475, 1478, 2092. 25 One thought paradigms judgment. Assuming really Court,5 nonethelessthat still early stages. No yet established; liabilities incurred. acknowledges questions, Upjohn, 489, concerning possible mcKesson 937, 100 1209, 'was reserved future Ante, p. 394, note 10. And question, 'are 395. hope will prove wasted time altogether 'piecemeal proceedings,' 381, 750, subsequent renders 'unnecessary irrelevant complete disposition litigation.' 382, 751 (footnote omitted). If happen, likelihood brought back time, consideration unresolved. 1480, stated: 'Of course, later come here, allow adjudication offend decisive objection fragmentary review.' ignores 'decisive objection.' addition uneconomic use own entertainment interfered orderly procedures brief states stayed 'pending outcome appeal.' Brief, 11. taken bring 13, presumably pendency proceedings. So far litigants concerned, march eye-dropper water either, except insofar delay temporarily useful other. Now rendered, go forward courts; better informed ultimate came jot closer conclusion. 27 gives explanation principles. There faintest suggestion compelling requiring whatever actually decide.6 Nor private interests stake irremediably lost unless acts, determined below procedure separable independently jurisdiction.7 E.g., 268, 235; 772—773. Ninety percent remains submerged. suspect snipping off deciding 10% reached surface lies failed presented, 270, jurisdictional objections apparent.8 am loss understand why chooses compound original error, correct it. appeals. similar same. trated together, assignments errors exactly same.' cross-petition, following defenses: '(1) wilfully prices; '(2) foreign corporation, licensed transact business Ohio; '(3) paragraph (which 'Retailer agrees Manufacturer's 'Identified Commodities' dealer fails hereof') Anti-Trust *; '(4) uniformly enforcing program trade-marked commodities '(5) modified abandoning prescription Ohio.' County; appeal. affirmed 3-to-4 vote. Art. IV, 2, provides: 'No void concurrence but judges, affirmance void.' separate subject 'further proceedings' therein unappealable 1257. Cf. 438 General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO Curry, 371 542, 548—552, 83 531, 535—538, 514; Mercantile Nat. Bank Langdeau, 555, 557-558, 520, 521—522, 523. 5(a) amended. 5(a)(2) latter thus 45(a)(2), referred herein 5(a)(3), 45(a)(3), preamble: 'Be Senate Representatives assembled, That protect regulate internal affairs more particularly laws, adopt policies, extend statutes, policies commodities, agreements, activities affecting commerce.' 631—632. 311, n. 14, 941, 1209: specifically exempts antitrust 'fair trade' bind agreement refuse sign agreement.' Note, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 763, 766—767 (1964). expressly 'These (manufac urers) many establishments branded caused served (Hudson).' 208, 237. distinguishable clear, event upon taken. supra. 'Final decrees rendered highest had, By drawn ground being repugnant treaties favor validity.' 5, infra, 398. Rev.Code became October 22, 1959. August Legislature, several effective. 1959; reach found described actions seek unconstitutional. Both each together. assignment error identical cases. "For Defendant-Appellant asserts erred Sections 1333.27 1333.34 binding Plaintiff-Appellee, granting Plaintiff-Appellee dismissing Defendant-Appellant." 207—208, N.E.2d, followed long discussion 'historical background,' 238, included major legislation entirely demonstration 'that great majority legislatures provide reasonable controls field (of trade), police powers sovereign power.' 224, 247. nothing anything single holding A dissenting states: 'On 1959 nullifying 481.' 230, 251. concerned solely prior rehearing denied) urged appeared consistent particular formal judgment, quotes, ante, contains intimation question. neither once mentions construing 497, 460, 466. Indeed, tell, already '* (The Act) As sole 'where retailers.' 392. restatement passage quoted names filled in. special might features leaves initial triviality, given puzzling. Such defeat Nashville, Chattanooga Louis Wallace, 288 249, 53 345, 730, surely create otherwise lacking. called attention either appellees noted. response statement; represented counsel, motion dismiss, mention

Category: 7