Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:53:14.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , October 1986 , pp. 955 - 958
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1351–52 (emphasis in original).

2 The claims based on the Sherman Act, the Wilson Tariff Act and the Robinson-Patman Act depended on the same alleged conspiracy, and therefore the district court dismissed them on the same grounds. Id. at 1352. The district court ruled separately that petitioners were entitled to summary judgment on respondents’ claims under the Antidumping Act of 1916, and the court of appeals subsequently reversed. Petitioners did not present these claims in the petition for certiorari, however, and the Supreme Court did not address the issue. Id. at 1352 n.3.

3 The appellate court reversed a decision by the federal district court excluding evidence proffered by respondents to demonstrate the existence of the conspiracy. The Supreme Court did not review the admissibility issue.

4 Both the court of appeals and the Supreme Court determined that it was unnecessary to address petitioners’ claims that they could not be held liable under the antitrust laws for conduct that was compelled by a foreign sovereign because the facts of the case did not present a sovereign compulsion issue. 106 S.Ct. at 1353, 1362.

5 Id. at 1354.

6 Id. at 1355–56. Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the standard of proof for a summary judgment motion and provides, in pertinent part:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate shall be entered against him.

7 106 S.Ct. at 1353.

8 Id. at 1362.

9 The Court observed that “RCA and Zenith, not any of the petitioners, continue to hold the largest share of the American retail market in color television sets.” Id. at 1359.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 1363.

12 Id. at 1360.

13 Id. at 1364.