Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company

PETITIONER: Utah Pie Company
RESPONDENT: Continental Baking Company
LOCATION: Bellmawr, New Jersey Police Department

DOCKET NO.: 18
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

CITATION: 386 US 685 (1967)
ARGUED: Jan 17, 1967
DECIDED: Apr 24, 1967

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 17, 1967 in Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company

Earl Warren:

Number 18, Utah Pie Company, Petitioner, versus Continental Baking Company et al.

Mr. Alioto.

Joseph L. Alioto:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This is a private anti trust suit.

In the trial court, the petitioner, the Utah Pie Company won the verdicts.

And a judgment was entered on that verdict of $350,000.

In addition to winning the verdict, it also secured from the trial court a decree which prohibited the respondents from charging a lower price for the product in the trading area of the petitioner than a charge in those states of California and Iowa, respectively, where the respondents had their plants.

During the course of the trial, the respondents timely, made timely motions for directed verdicts.

Those motions were reserved.

After the jury verdict and the entry of the judgment for the petition, the respondents made motions for judgment N. O. V. and motions for a new trial.

The trial courts denied both of those motions.

When we got to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals wiped out the judgment for money damages and it wiped out the decree for injunctive relief and in the course of doing it said that the cause should be remanded to the dis -- to the District Court with a direction "to enter judgment for defendants," that was the direction.

A ground relied upon the Court of Appeals for reversal of both the money judgment and the decree was that there was insufficient evidence to justify the findings, the verdict of the jury, and the judgment that was entered on that verdict.

Potter Stewart:

There were -- there were separate verdicts, were there, against each one of these three defendants?

I know that the conspiracy -- the conspiracy charge was found against the plaintiff by a --

Joseph L. Alioto:

There were separate verdicts Justice Stewart.

The verdict against the Continental Company was for $88,000, the verdict against the Pet Company was for a $152,000, the verdict against Carnation was for $93,000, and then the -- the decree ran separately in effect as to each of them.

In the original complaint, there was a cost stated for Section 1 of the -- under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and a cost stated under 2 (a) separately.

What we in effect said is that the discriminatory price was brought about as the result of some cooperation among three --

Potter Stewart:

-- three defendants.

Joseph L. Alioto:

-- respondents.

But we made it clear and the trial court made it clear that in the event the jury found on both counts that the petitioner wouldn't get the damages from both but that the Court would select one or the other so there was not much of an overlap.

Nevertheless, the -- the verdict and the judgments were a separate verdict and judgments because the jury found for us on the -- on the 2 (a) question.

Potter Stewart:

For a separate amount against that each would be --

Joseph L. Alioto:

For separate amounts against each of them and for separate litigation expenses as I had given them to the Court.

That is correct.

The three of them aggregated approximately 350.

Potter Stewart:

And that was after the jury had covered the amount of actual damages now.

Joseph L. Alioto:

After the judge had covered the amount on the jury's verdict, yes.

Potter Stewart:

I see, within the -- this $88,000 and $152,000 and $93,000 --