Document: 381 U.S. 348 85 S.Ct. 1553 14 L.Ed.2d 679 COLUMBIA ARTISTS MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,v.UNITED STATES al. No. 775. Supreme Court of the United States May 24, 1965 Seymour D. Lewis and Ralph F. Colin, for appellants. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum Elliott H. Moyer, States. Theodore R. Kupferman, appellee Summy-Birchard, Inc. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to affirm is granted judgment affirmed. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN, STEWART, GOLDBERG, dissenting. 3 An examination proceedings in this case convinces us that a summary disposition matter not appropriate. 4 In 1955 Government brought an antitrust action against appellant Columbia, Community Concerts, (Columbia's wholly owned subsidiary), two corporations whose successor Inc.* Columbia Summy-Birchard manage professional concert artists, their affiliates, Civic Concert Service division are 'concert services,' organizing maintaining local nonprofit 'audience associations' throughout country which sponsor series. Normally audience association pays artist established fee set by his manager, out artist's manager retains share service also known as 'margin.' Government's complaint charged conspiracy monopolize business managing booking artists forming associations. 5 On October 20, 1955, consent decree was entered District Southern New York, terms provide companies must make available all services at same rate performers associations without reference management artists. Paragraph VI(D) requires each defendant 'to any financial responsible managed such reasonably desired performance, margin allowed or its affiliate performance fee.' 6 Columbia's standard contract with contains provision, Columiba argues required collective bargaining agreement among managers artists' union, prohibiting from engagement less than artist. After protested signing contracts containing provision on ground it constituted illegal resale price maintenance, petitioned July 18, 1963, construction decree, alleging part specifically sanctioned thus insulated attack party decree. were joined parties. held prevented competition services, them be paid 'margin' artist, concluded illegal. reargument, reaffirmed prior opinion stated final order: 7 'The * before shall performed constitutes maintenance per se violation Section Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). To extent Final Judgment operates allow prices, void contrary Act, continued reliance upon portion portions will construed way valid.' 8 appeals claiming modification power modify agreement. I. 9 our view there substance contention modified As we read Court's opinion, court affirmatively use then went invalidating permitted include issue contracts. Judge original opinion: 10 scheme conducted embodied clearly envisions able control ultimate 'consummer' association, impresario, whoever assumes risk 'producing' show. Were so, definition would meaningless. Since decree—albeit order—has pro tanto structuring industry, should slow consider charges illegality system.' 11 suggested Summy-Birchard's answer might treated 'petition declaratory judgment' modification.' discussion whether he conclude stating: 12 'Thus, insofar decree-imposed requirement letter policy construe 13 characterized what had done '[i]nvalidation decree.' rehearing states, November 19 accordingly reaffirmed,' Court, above, states '[t]o Act.' language conclusively shows despite opposition modification. We believe previously under circumstances present here raises substantial questions law. This has ordinarily may parties involved. v. Swift & Co., 286 106, 119, 52 460, 464, 76 999, Cardozo Court: 'Nothing clear showing grievous wrong evoked new unforeseen conditions lead change decreed after years litigation concerned.' See International Harvester 274 693, 47 748, 71 L.Ed. 1302; Ford Motor Co. States, 335 303, 69 93, 93 24. While modifications decrees occasion, see Chrysler Corp. 316 556, 62 1146, 86 1668; cf. Hughes 342 353, 72 306, 96 394, changed usually necessary. Whether proper case, where no claimed, determined summarily. Additionally, determination prohibited 26 Stat. 209, issues law ought briefed argued. II. 15 Apart already been said, another reason why dealt If viewed but rather neither nor court's conduct violated Act. event appeal lies Expediting 32 823, amended, 29, allows direct only civil actions 'wherein complainant.' appealing declaratory. judgment, transferred Appeals Second Circuit. holding properly because fact commenced Government, scope resolved plenary consideration. Shenandoah Valley Broadcasting, ASCAP, 375 39, 84 8, 8. 16 therefore 'postpone jurisdiction' argument. 17 DOUGLAS took consideration decision case. both National Artists subsidiary, Services,

Category: 7