CONTINENTAL ORE COMPANY v. UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION, 368 U.S. 886 (1961)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
CONTINENTAL ORE COMPANY v. UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION , 368 U.S. 886 (1961)368 U.S. 886
CONTINENTAL ORE COMPANY et al.,
petitioners,
v.
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION et al.
No. 304.
Supreme Court of the United States
October 23, 1961
Joseph L. Alioto and Maxwell Keith, for petitioners.
Herbert W. Clark, Richard J. Archer and Girvan Peck, for respondents Union Carbide Corp. and United States Vanadium Corp.
Edward R. Neaher and Francis N. Marshall, for respondent Vanadium Corp. of America.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 2, 5, and 6 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'2. Whether an Appellate Court can
take away from a jury the question of causal effect concerning an
injury by
a 100% two-company monopoly (admittedly achieved pursuant to an intent to monopolize) when the question of violation is confessed and the issue of measurement of damages is more than sufficiently supported by relevant economic data and where the destruction of the plaintiff company (petitioners herein) was admitted to be, by a chief executive officer of a defendant, an important goal of the monopolists?
'5. Whether petitioners, an American
company, can claim damages under the anti-trust laws for injury
caused by their elimination from the Canadian market when it was
shown that two other American companies had entered into a
conspiracy to eliminate all competition and to monopolize the
industry and when it is shown that as part of this conspiracy one
of the American companies utilized its domination and control over
a wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, which had been given a
discretionary power by the Canadian government to allocate the
importation of vanadium into Canada during the war, to exclude the
exports of petitioners (competitors) from entering Canada for sale
to petitioners' Canadian customers and when it is shown that the
refusal of the Canadian subsidiary to allocate vanadium to
petitioners' Canadian customers was directed by its American parent
company pursuant to the overall conspiracy to eliminate all
competition and specifically to eliminate petitioners. This issue
was erroneously decided against petitioners on the Court of
Appeals' manifest misapplication of this Court's recent opinion in
Eastern Railroad Pres[idents] Conf[erence] v. Noerr Motor Frgt.,
Inc., 1961, 365 U.S.
127 [].
'6. Whether petitioners, against whom
a directed verdict was ordered by the Appellate Court, were
deprived of a trial by jury by the Appellate Court below which
weighed the evidence, made factual rulings on the suffi-
[368 U.S. 886 ,
888]
Opinions
v.
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION et al.
No. 304. Supreme Court of the United States October 23, 1961 Joseph L. Alioto and Maxwell Keith, for petitioners. Herbert W. Clark, Richard J. Archer and Girvan Peck, for respondents Union Carbide Corp. and United States Vanadium Corp. Edward R. Neaher and Francis N. Marshall, for respondent Vanadium Corp. of America. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 2, 5, and 6 presented by the petition which read as follows:
U.S. Supreme Court
CONTINENTAL ORE COMPANY v. UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION , 368 U.S. 886 (1961) 368 U.S. 886 CONTINENTAL ORE COMPANY et al., petitioners,v.
UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION et al.
No. 304. Supreme Court of the United States October 23, 1961 Joseph L. Alioto and Maxwell Keith, for petitioners. Herbert W. Clark, Richard J. Archer and Girvan Peck, for respondents Union Carbide Corp. and United States Vanadium Corp. Edward R. Neaher and Francis N. Marshall, for respondent Vanadium Corp. of America. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 2, 5, and 6 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'2. Whether an Appellate Court can
take away from a jury the question of causal effect concerning an
injury by
Page 368 U.S.
886 , 887
a 100% two-company monopoly (admittedly achieved pursuant to an
intent to monopolize) when the question of violation is confessed
and the issue of measurement of damages is more than sufficiently
supported by relevant economic data and where the destruction of
the plaintiff company (petitioners herein) was admitted to be, by a
chief executive officer of a defendant, an important goal of the
monopolists?
'5. Whether petitioners, an American
company, can claim damages under the anti-trust laws for injury
caused by their elimination from the Canadian market when it was
shown that two other American companies had entered into a
conspiracy to eliminate all competition and to monopolize the
industry and when it is shown that as part of this conspiracy one
of the American companies utilized its domination and control over
a wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, which had been given a
discretionary power by the Canadian government to allocate the
importation of vanadium into Canada during the war, to exclude the
exports of petitioners (competitors) from entering Canada for sale
to petitioners' Canadian customers and when it is shown that the
refusal of the Canadian subsidiary to allocate vanadium to
petitioners' Canadian customers was directed by its American parent
company pursuant to the overall conspiracy to eliminate all
competition and specifically to eliminate petitioners. This issue
was erroneously decided against petitioners on the Court of
Appeals' manifest misapplication of this Court's recent opinion in
Eastern Railroad Pres[idents] Conf[erence] v. Noerr Motor Frgt.,
Inc., 1961, 365 U.S.
127 [].
'6. Whether petitioners, against whom
a directed verdict was ordered by the Appellate Court, were
deprived of a trial by jury by the Appellate Court below which
weighed the evidence, made factual rulings on the suffi-
Page 368 U.S.
886 , 888
ciency of evidence of causation, did not view the evidence as a
whole, did not allow petitioners the benefit of all their evidence,
did not allow petitioners the benefit of all inferences and
presumptions to be drawn from the evidence and did not resolve all
conflicts in the evidence in favor of petitioners in direct
conflict with this Court's opinion in Beacon Theatres, Inc., v.
Westover,
Page 368 U.S.
886 , 1959
359 U.S.
500 [ ].'
Search This Case
