United States v. W. T. Grant Co. et al. (345 U.S. 629)

U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 25, 1953 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)

Citation
345 U.S. 629 · 73 S. Ct. 894
Docket
No. 532
Argued
April 9, 1953
Decided
May 25, 1953
Term
October Term 1952
Vote
7–2
Majority author
Justice Clark
Issue area
Economic Activity
Disposition
Affirmed
Outcome
Petitioning party lost
Ideological direction
Conservative

How the Justices voted

Majority
Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed
Dissenting
Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Black

Opinion on Justia

Opinion excerpt

Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. For the first time since the enactment of the Clayton Act in 1914 the Court is called upon to consider § 8’s prohibitions against interlocking corporate directorates. The Government appeals from judgments dismissing civil actions brought against Hancock and three pairs of corporations which he served as a director, W. T. Grant Co. and S. H. Kress & Co., Sears Roebuck & Co. and Bond Stores, Inc., and Kroger Co. and Jewel Tea Co., Inc. Alleging that the size and competitive relationship of each set of companies brought the interlocks within the reach of § 8, the complaints asked the court to order the particular interlocks terminated and to enjoin future violations of § 8 by the individual and corporate defendants. Soon after the complaints were filed, Hancock resigned from the boards of Kress, Kroger and Bond. Disclosing the resignations by affidavit, all of the defendants then moved to dismiss the actions as moot. Treated as motions for summary judgment, they were granted by the District Judge. He concluded that there is not “the slightest threat that the defendants will attempt any future activity in violation of Section 8 [if they have violated it already] . . . .” 112 F. Supp. 336, 338. The Government brought this direct appeal under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 62 Stat. 989, 15 U. S. C. (Supp.…

Excerpt of a 17,119-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.

← Back to the decisions database