Document: 340 U.S. 558 71 S.Ct. 408 95 L.Ed. 534 EMICH MOTORS CORPORATION et al.v.GENERAL al. No. 209. Argued Jan. 3—4, 1951. Decided Feb. 26, Rehearing Denied April 9, See 341 906, 610. Mr. Anthony Bradley Eben, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Ferris E. Hurd, respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This action was brought in United States District Court Northern Illinois under § 4 Clayton Act1 to recover treble damages injuries alleged have been suffered by reason a conspiracy restraint trade violation Sherman Act, 1.2 Plaintiffs, petitioners here, are Emich Motors Corporation, former dealer Chevrolet cars, and its related finance company, Acceptance Corporation. Respondents General Corporation wholly owned subsidiary (GMAC). 2 Prior this respondents had convicted Federal Indiana on an indictment charging them, certain their officers agents who were acquitted, with interstate cars. At trial instant case permitted introduce antecedent criminal indictment, verdict judgment as evidence 5 which provides part that 3 'A final or decree rendered any prosecution suit proceeding equity behalf anti-trust laws effect defendant has violated said shall be prima facie against such other party all matters respecting would estoppel between parties thereto * *.'3 A reversed Appeals Seventh Circuit partly ground court erred use it jury make derived from prior proceeding. 1950, 181 F.2d 70. We granted certiorari, limiting review important questions scope Act. 808, 62, rehearing denied 894, 204. I. The relevant facts may stated briefly. charge summarized appeal follows: 6 '* paragraph 34 charges restrain unduly commerce automobiles. Paragraph 35 states purpose defendants monopolize control business financing new used 70 alleges dealers complied defendants' coercive plan order save substantial investments businesses, burden unreasonably automobiles, 72 is restatement 34. 7 'The specific conduct embraced within illegal concert described paragraphs 36 67 *: (1) Requiring promise GMAC exclusively condition obtaining franchise sale, transportation delivery automobiles; (2) Making contracts short periods cancellable without cause, canceling threatening cancel unless facilities used; (3) Discriminating not using refusing deliver cars when ordered, delaying shipment shipping different number, model, color style; (4) Compelling disclose how they wholesale purchases retail sales, examining inspecting dealers' books accounts procure information, requiring justify media; (5) Giving special favors GMAC; (6) Granting discount companies; (7) rebate paid purchaser, induce facilities; (8) refrain companies necessary, appropriate effective means.'4 8 submitted instructions Government need prove some twenty-six acts means effecting conspiracy. general finding corporate guilty acquitting individual defendants. Maximum fines assessed each corporations. affirmed. v. Corp., 1941, 121 376. 314 618, 62 105, 86 497, denied, 710, 178, 566. 9 Among almost 50 whose testimony introduced Fred Emich, controlled corporations here. On thus reviewed his testimony: 10 'Fred at Illinois, 1932 1936 he own company facilitate course displeased GMAC. He received unordered trucks 1933, city manager informed him cease soon give time sales paper gave around 10% 1934 became acquainted visits representatives. zone warned 1935 contract renewal meeting if expected continue better least 50%. Again experienced difficulties Chevrolet. wrong colors models shipped accessories great quantities forced upon him. In addition required send blank checks factory before told representative these problems disappear given 'last warning,' telling going example failure Not long thereafter cancelled dealer, appealed president where pleaded period four years done gross $3,000,000. because did GMAC, policy corporation require agree useless discuss reinstatement *.'5 II. 11 complaint allege unlawfully conspired cars; so same charged action, copy therein being attached exhibit; pursuant injured petitioners' businesses one more unlawful set forth particularly terminating cancelling terminate Motors, financed purchase sale through rather than deny conspiracy; admit cancellation franchises but assert justified Motors' perform obligations thereunder, well persistence inimical interest promoting 12 establish 5, offered six-volume record exhibits case. held inadmissible jury, exceptions However, over respondents' objection, admitted, go conviction 13 judge petitioners, answer. then instructed 14 proceedings admitted (respondents) enter into manner *.' 15 After explaining term 'prima evidence,' Act 16 necessary government separate sections indictment. nor plaintiffs you find exist. 17 case, law I just referred, plaintiff making issues only solely defining, describing, entered namely, violate laws. 18 establishing preponderance must including compel agreeing among themselves, things, failed refused satisfactory extent things reasons cancellation, agreed themselves withhold delay automobiles services actively delayed shipments conspiracy.' (Emphasis supplied.) 19 returned resulted judgments $1,236,000 damages. $257,358.10 costs attorneys' fees. 20 concluded 'that monopolizing essential movement those cars.' It approved court's ruling inadmissibility entire criticized exhibit complaint, references opening statement closing argument counsel jury. serious error committed sent 'told could look (the indictment) ascertain furtherance observed 'it unnecessary means, except venue, guilty,' 'such considered established guilt.' aggravated instruction last quoted italicized part, supra, page 75. III. 21 issue we determine, defined our granting review, 'whether construing permitting: (a) admission respondents, (b) occasioned cancellation.' 22 considering application confronted five differing interpretations. broadest construction urged contend conspiracy, should admissible action. view differs permit beyond judgment, amicus curiae takes contracted position, urging brief also performance accomplishing rendering guilty, necessarily found occurred, latter determined treble-damage submit pleadings assist understanding what conviction. construes section still narrowly, holding concludes none exhibited although examine 'as aid determining defining presented earlier 76. Finally, single acts; since offer support impossible determine various based verdict; consequently no relevance IV. 23 Section adopted response recommendation President Wilson Congress 'agree giving private individuals right (antitrust) suits redress proved sued combinations complained won 51 Cong.Rec. 1964. Congressional reports debates proposal ultimately reflect minimize burdens litigation suitors available them previously antitrust actions. H.R. Rep. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 14; S. 698, 45; 9270, 9490, 13851. intended evidentiary benefits revealed legislative materials, follow equally prosecutions Government. By terms, however, makes favor suitor 'all which' 'would estoppel' States. think confer, subject defendant's enjoyment day party, large advantage doctrine afford suit. 24 made reference estoppel. As observed, 'principle applicable decisions courts civil jurisdiction.' Frank Mangum, 1915, 237 309, 334, 582, 590, 59 969; Sealfon States, 1948, 332 575, 578, 68 237, 239, 92 180. work subsequent Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber Commerce, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1931, 53 518, affirmed sub nom. Local 167 1934, 291 293, 54 396, 78 804; Farley Patterson, 166 App.Div. 358, 152 N.Y.S. 59; see State Intoxicating Liquor (Adams), 1900, Vt. 253, 47 A. 779; Freeman, Judgments (5th ed. 1925,) 657. Such extends 'distinctly put directly determined' prosecution. 590; Meyerson, 1928, 855, 856. regarded having judgment. Cf. Commonwealth Evans, 1869, 101 Mass. 25. Accordingly, entitled fact decided based. 25 difficult problem, course, adjudicated findings does indicate effectuating And conviction, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 1940, 310 150, 60 811, 84 1129, particular one. Under circumstances hearing suit, examination record, pleadings, submitted, arrived verdict, opinions courts. supra; cf. Oklahoma Texas, 1921, 256 70, 41 420, 65 831.6 26 Appeals' undisturbed determination, accept firmly rooted toward force facilities. That court, commenting sufficiency evidence, 'the coercion supported evidence. practices many varied aimed dealer-purchasers Undoubtedly warranted attaching label appellants.' Cir., 376, 397. conclusion reached Ford Motor Co. 335 303, 69 93, 93 24, another GMAC.7 27 are, therefore, effectuation coercing To therefore introduce, impact resulting damages.8 From follows 28 What is, question instruct task clear limit present explanation made, mechanical rule can laid down judge, take account free exercise 'a well-established range judicial discretion'. Nardone 1939, 308 338, 342, 266, 268, 307. precluded resorting portions presenting picture there trial. Eastman Kodak Southern Photo Material 1923, 295 F. 98, 101, 1927, 273 359, 400, 684. similar discretion exercised approving attachment complaint. 29 summary judgment; reconstruct deems acquaint fully therein; explain may, clarity, inform evidence; later if, discretion, ends justice will served. 30 remanded directions modify conform opinion. 31 ordered. 32 Case directions. 33 MINTON took consideration decision 38 Stat. 731, U.S.C. 15, U.S.C.A. 15. 209, 1, 1. 16, 16. 383. 396. McLaren, Doctrine Res Judicata Applied Trial Criminal Cases, Wash.L.Rev. 198, 200 (1935). 'plain effect' 'to draw line dealer's contract, refusal renew it, discrimination antomobiles, influencing fall common 'coercion,' 'persuasion,' 'exposition' 'argument' fair characterizations. word 'coercion' summarize which, exist, call Motors. words describe usage, verdict. Nothing judge's erases blurs distinction.' pages 316—319, 100. Relevant 316 U.S., note 3, 99. deciding methods carrying out, do intend preclude purposes, apart permit. Petitioners intention Emichs' franchises. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 302—304 (3d ed., 1940); American Medical Association 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 130 233, 250—252, 1943, 317 519, 63 326, 87 434. Whether contention correct and, so, whether motive review.

Category: 7