Court Opinion

ID: 9449839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:24:59.736895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:00.948565
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the Court’s opinion and the decision. But I would add this by way emP^asis-
As the opinion points out, the proof of the existence of the conspiracy in 1952-1961 depended here entirely on the 1945-conspiracy. Without the Paramount decree, the conspiracy was not established, and hence that portion of the Paramount decree was clearly irrelevant and not admissible..
But ag the opinion points out; the task of tbe trial Judge may be a delicate one in selecting (or excising) portions of a decree ag admissible or tiot admissible under § 5 The Trial Court>s pretrial order which we effectually approve required the prior establishment of all elements. I am not sure that on applicable principles of collateral estoppel *370this is required. Assuming that there is evidence outside of the decree to show the continuation of some of the same acts as were condemned in the decree, I think such portions of the decree would be admissible if otherwise pertinent to show such fact, and the further legal-fact that such action had been determined to be a violation of the anti-trust statutes. Similarly, if there were other evidence available to show continuation of a conspiracy, I would have much doubt that it would be necessary, as the pretrial order required, to prove that damage was sustained thereby.
What I think warrants emphasis is that it is not a case of all or nothing. There may well be circumstances in which the decree would not be admissible (as here) to prove the element of conspiracy, but at the same time other portions would be admissible to establish other pertinent elements if connected up.