Holophane v. United States

PETITIONER: Holophane Co., Inc.
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Quality Photo Shop

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1956-1957)

CITATION: 352 US 903 (1956)
ARGUED: Nov 05, 1956
DECIDED: Nov 13, 1956

Facts of the case


Media for Holophane v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 05, 1956 (Part 2) in Holophane v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 05, 1956 (Part 1) in Holophane v. United States

Earl Warren:

Number 2 on the docket, Holophane Company, Incorporated, Appellant, versus United States of America.

Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Attorney General:

May it please the Court.

This case is a civil antitrust case originating in the Southern District of Ohio and tried before His Honor Mell G. Underwood.

It comes before this Court upon appeal under the Expediting Act of 1903 from an order or judgment in decree entered by Judge Underwood February 8, 1954.

A seasonable motion for new trial and other relief after judgment was filed and overruled February 9th, 1955.

Thereafter, proceedings were perfected in this Court and jurisdiction noted October 10th, 1955.

The complaint charged a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by a reason of agreements existing between the appellant, which was the sole party defendant in this litigation and two foreign corporations.

In other words, in general classification, this case is a cartel case.

And yet I might say at the outset that if there ever was a case in which that word should not be endowed with talismanic qualities which preclude an examination under the rule of reason, this case is it.

The appellant, Holophane Company, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation which has a factory in Newark, Ohio and its general offices in New York City.

It manufactures prismatic glassware.

That is glassware which is impressed with prismatic contours either in linear or circular form so arranged as to conduce to the projection of light patterns.

I think on some of the exhibits Your Honors will see the slogan, “We turn light into illumination.”

It is the function of this prismatic glassware to direct and focus or diffuse the light which comes from the source.

The products include what are known as reflectors from which the light obviously bounces back, refractors through which the light passes and is bent into one direction or another, and lenses which perform in substance the same function as is performed by refractors.

Generally speaking, refractors are used out of doors and lenses are used indoors.

Refractors are a prominent element in the street lighting aspect of the Holophane business about which more will be stated later.

Those are the physical products which Holophane makes.

I might add that it not only makes the glass, but to some extent fabricates lighting fixtures which incorporate this prismatic glassware.

It also sells prismatic glassware to other fabricators of lighting fixtures for incorporation by them in their own structures.

Because of the oddity of the name, it might be worth just to comment upon that.

The name, Holophane derives from two Greek combining forms holo, meaning complete, entire, or whole such as in holograph, holocaust and phane meaning to appear.

And so the term in combination means wholly apparent or appearing completely.

And I might say that I was delighted to find in the multivolume Oxford Dictionary last week that there actually is a word holophanerous meaning wholly apparent.

The facts in this case as presented in the record below were developed by two witnesses who testified in person.

One called upon cross-examination by the Government.

The other adduced used by the appellant, the defendant below.

Both were officers of the appellant.

In addition, there are stipulations and numerous documents.