United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
- Decided
- March 8, 1948
- Docket
- 13
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,383 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Triumphant Gold v. Matloff
What later courts said
- holding that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made — R-S-H (2003)
- holding that district courts generally defer to the magistrate judge and overrule orders only for a clear abuse of discretion — Oldridge v. Wichita, Kansas, City of (2025)
- holding that a motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to merely attempt to convince the court to rethink a decision it has already made — Hazzouri v. West Pittston Borough (2019)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States instituted this suit on August 15, 1940, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia against United States Gypsum Com [*367] pany, five other corporate defendants, and seven individual defendants, as a civil proceeding under the Sherman Act. The complaint charged that the appellees had violated both §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices on patented gypsum board and unpatented gypsum products, to standardize gypsum board and its method of production for the purpose of eliminating competition, and to regulate the distribution of gypsum board by eliminating jobbers and fixing resale prices of manufacturing distributors.
The Attorney General filed an expediting certificate on December 16, 1941, and on September 17, 1942, a three-judge court was constituted to hear the case. By amendment to the complaint the government charged that the article claims of five patents owned by United States Gypsum were invalid and void. The appellees moved to strike the amendment to the complaint or in the alternative for partial judgment dismissing the amendment. On November 15, 1943, the court granted appellees’ motion for partial judgment on the ground that the government had no standing to attack the validity of the patents in an antitrust proceeding. The case thereupon went to trial and upon conclusion of the government’s case on April 20, 1944, the appellees moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon the ground that on the facts and the law the government had shown no right to relief. On June 15, 1946, the court filed an opinion holding that the motion should be granted, and on August 5, 1946, the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. The government appealed directly to this Court, 32 Stat. 823, and probable jurisdiction was noted on December 16, 1946. The decisions below are reported as United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 53 F. Supp. 889 and 67 F. [*368] Supp. 397. United States v. Line Material Co., decided today, ante, p. 287, will be of value to the reader in considering this opinion.
Cite this
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.