United States v. General Dynamics Corporation

PETITIONER: United States
RESPONDENT: General Dynamics Corporation
LOCATION: Bureau of Indian Affairs

DOCKET NO.: 72-402
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 415 US 486 (1974)
ARGUED: Dec 05, 1973
DECIDED: Mar 19, 1974

ADVOCATES:
Daniel M. Friedman - for appellant
Reuben L. Hedlund - for appellees

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United States v. General Dynamics Corporation

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 05, 1973 in United States v. General Dynamics Corporation

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - March 19, 1974 in United States v. General Dynamics Corporation

Potter Stewart:

This case is here on appeal from the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The government commenced this suit in the United States District Court for that district, challenging as violative of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the acquisition of the Stock of United Electrical Coal Companies by Material Service Corporation and its successor General Dynamics Corporation.

After lengthy discovery proceedings, a trial was held for more than three weeks in the spring of 1970 and in 1972 the District Court issued an opinion and judgment, finding no violation of the Clayton Act.

The government appealed directly to this Court pursuant to the Expediting Act and we noted probable jurisdiction.

In its long and thorough opinion, the District Court concluded that the evidence did not support the government's contention that the effect of the acquisition might be substantially to lessen competition in any line of commerce, in any section of the country.

For the reasons set out in some detail in the written opinion filed with the clerk today, we hold that this conclusion of the District Court was not erroneous and we accordingly affirm the judgment before us.

Mr. Justice Douglas has filed a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall have joined.

The view expressed in the dissenting opinion is that the District Court did not make the findings necessary to determine whether or not this acquisition violated Section 7 and that the case should be remanded to the District Court so that these findings can be laid.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice Stewart.