Holding that the Government's proofs were sufficient to show
that respondent had violated the Sherman Act, this Court reversed
the District Court's judgment dismissing the complaint and remanded
this case with directions to afford respondent a further
opportunity to submit evidence to refute the Government's right to
injunctive relief.
362 U. S. 362 U.S.
29. On remand, respondent introduced evidence not to rebut the
Government's proof as to violation, but only to show that it had
abandoned its illegal sales policy and that, therefore, an
injunction was not necessary. The District Court entered an order
denying not only injunctive relief, but also an adjudication that
respondent had violated the law.
Held: the Government is entitled to a judgment on the
merits, and the District Court should retain the case on the docket
for future action if the Government applies for further relief from
an alleged resumption by respondent of illegal activity. Pp.
365 U. S.
125-126.
PER CURIAM.
When this case was last here, we held that the Government's
proofs were sufficient to show that Parke Davis violated the
Sherman Act. However, in reversing the District Court's judgment,
we remanded the case with direction to afford Parke Davis a further
opportunity to submit evidence in order to refute the Government's
right to injunctive relief.
United States
v.
Page 365 U. S. 126
Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U. S.
29,
362 U. S. 49. On
remand, Parke Davis introduced evidence not to refute the
Government's proof as to violation, but only to show that it had
abandoned its illegal sales policy, and that therefore an
injunction, being unnecessary, should not issue. On that record,
the District Court entered an order denying not only the injunctive
relief sought by the Government, but also an adjudication that
Parke Davis had violated the law. The present appeal is not from
the provision which denies injunctive relief, but from the omission
of a provision adjudging that Parke Davis violated the Act. We have
examined the record as supplemented on the remand, and hold that,
under our prior order, the Government is entitled to a judgment on
the merits, as prayed in paragraph 1 of the section of the
Complaint captioned "Prayer." We also hold that the District Court
should retain the case on the docket for future action in the event
the Government applies for further relief from an alleged
resumption by Parke Davis of illegal activity. The order of the
District Court filed July 18, 1960, is therefore vacated, and the
case is remanded to the District Court with direction to enter
judgment accordingly.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER agrees,
would place this case on the summary calendar for argument,
postponing to the merits consideration of the question of
jurisdiction raised by the respondent.
