Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.

PETITIONER: Agency Holding Corporation
RESPONDENT: Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
LOCATION: Action Iron and Metal Company

DOCKET NO.: 86-497
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 483 US 143 (1987)
ARGUED: Apr 21, 1987
DECIDED: Jun 22, 1987

ADVOCATES:
Harry Woodruff Turner - for respondents in both cases
Henry Woodruff Turner - on behalf of Respondent
John H. Bingler, Jr. - on behalf of Petitioner
Robert L. Frantz - on behalf of Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 21, 1987 in Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.

In the Del Costello case we didn't follow that.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

There are, I suppose, reasons that could be further elaborated as to why the Clayton Act model is a good one but when the Sedima case is examined and when the legislative history is examined, it is clear that the anti-trust model was very much in the mind of Congress.

Robert L. Frantz:

We didn't because we said, or this Court said that a 30 day, or even a 90 day statute of limitations that would have been provided by the state was inconsistent with the federal policy of having labor disputes worked out and then giving the plaintiff an adequate time.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

Beyond that, I might add as to the legislative history, I think it's impossible to determine one way or the other what hints there may be in the legislative history as to an appropriate statute of limitations.

Robert L. Frantz:

And in Del Costello, the adequate time was only six months.

The Clayton Act should be borrowed.

But you don't rely on any specific statutory basis for saying we must look to state law?

Isn't the injury, the damages recovery, and the anti-trust laws is for damages to business or property?

You just think it's a good idea and we've done it before?

Henry Woodruff Turner:

It's almost the same language, Justice White, as the language of the Rico statute.

Robert L. Frantz:

I don't, it's my understanding that the Rules of Decision Act was originally considered as the basis for applying state law.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

And, the concepts are the same.

I thought that once too, but we rejected that in Del Costello.

Well, why shouldn't you look to some state statute then as sort of deals with business or property?

Robert L. Frantz:

Right.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

I think if there was one.

So, maybe there's nothing.

Well, there are several.

But, it is at least theoretically possible there would be no statute of limitations.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

That's the problem.

Robert L. Frantz:

There was no statute of limitation in the?

Henry Woodruff Turner:

There are several in most states that deal with various types--

Robert L. Frantz:

Occidental--

At least you would be picking one dealing with business and property rather than something that doesn't deal with anything.

Right.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

--Oh well, if we're talking again about which one the, I don't think the "catch alls" don't deal with anything.

Robert L. Frantz:

--versus the E.E.O.C. case and for very good reason, because in that case, we were encouraging people to exhaust the E.E.O.C. administrative procedural remedies.

xxx.

Robert L. Frantz:

And you didn't want someone have to file a case and then sit on it for two, three, four years while it was going through the E.E.O.C. practice.

Henry Woodruff Turner:

I think they deal with something.