Court Opinion

ID: 9462643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:46:33.506401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:42.114107
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM P. GRAY, District Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I am glad to concur in Judge Browning’s opinion, except with respect to its holding that the trial court should make no mention of treble damages in instructing the jury. I think that the trial court should “level” with the jury and make sure that the members thereof understand the respective responsibilities of jury and court with respect to damages, just as the trial judge in this case did.
Jurors, like other citizens, are entitled to know what the law is, even with respect to damages in antitrust cases; presumably, many of the people who serve on juries have some awareness in these matters. If no explanation is given as to who does the multiplying by three, the jury might well assume that the responsibility is theirs and thus do it without anyone becoming aware that the “damages” have already been trebled. A judge fixes damages in an antitrust case in full knowledge that the amount will be tripled; I see no valid reason why we should try to conceal from a jury the ultimate effect of their verdict.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The petition for rehearing was held pending the decision in GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Continental T.V., Inc., 537 F.2d 980 (9th Cir. 1976). It is now denied.
As noted in the opinion in this case (see note 14), this case and GTE Sylvania deal with different questions. This case and Schwinn involve the legality of restrictions upon the territory in which a purchasing dealer may resell. The majority opinion in GTE Sylvania considers whether “Sylvania’s practice of fixing by agreement the locations from which Continental was authorized to sell Sylvania’s products was illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.” Id. at 982. The majority opinion in GTE Sylvania approves the result reached in this ease. However, it disapproves “any language in the Noble opinion that may be inconsistent with any of the majority’s language” in GTE. Id. at 1004 n.42. Accordingly, we have reexamined the opinions in both cases. We conclude that there are no inconsistencies between them and therefore *1092make no modification of the language of the opinion in this case.