American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.

Last updated

American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 13, 1982
Decided May 17, 1982
Full case nameAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corporation
Citations456 U.S. 556 ( more )
102 S. Ct. 1935; 72 L. Ed. 2d 330; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 3; 50 U.S.L.W. 4512; 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 64,730
Holding
A non-profit association, for the first time, was held liable for treble damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act due to antitrust violations.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor
ConcurrenceBurger
DissentPowell, joined by White, Rehnquist
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation, 456 U.S. 556 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case where a non-profit association, for the first time, was held liable for treble damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act due to antitrust violations. [1]

Contents

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held an association liable when its agents appeared to be acting under the authority of the association. Such action is called apparent authority. The court determined that a non-profit association is liable when it fails to prevent antitrust violation through the misuse of the association's reputation by its agents (including lower level staff and unpaid volunteers). [2]

Background

In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court held that American Society of Mechanical Engineers (a nonprofit association) was responsible for treble damages under the Sherman Act. In 1971 the engineering firm of McDonnell and Miller requested an interpretation of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes Committee. McDonnell and Miller planned to use the response to show that one of their competitors (Hydrolevel Corp) was selling a device not in compliance with the ASME BPV Code.

Unknown to ASME's leadership [1] the volunteer chairman of the ASME committee wrote a response to McDonnell and Miller's inquiry that was later used by a McDonnell and Miller salesmen as proof of Hydrolevel's noncompliance. Subsequently, according to Hydrolevel, it never acquired sufficient market penetration for sustaining business, and eventually went bankrupt.

Hydrolevel sued McDonnell and Miller, the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company and ASME arguing that two ASME subcommittee members acted not only in the self-interest of their companies, but also in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court concluded that the association was liable even though the ASME leadership 1) was unaware of the action the volunteer chairman took, 2) had not approved the action, 3) and did not benefit from the action. [1] Damages and legal fees paid by ASME were more than $6 million. An appellate court affirmed that ASME was liable because its agents had acted within the scope of their apparent authority.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that govern the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote economic competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Society of Mechanical Engineers</span> Mechanical engineering professional society

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is an American professional association that, in its own words, "promotes the art, science, and practice of multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences around the globe" via "continuing education, training and professional development, codes and standards, research, conferences and publications, government relations, and other forms of outreach." ASME is thus an engineering society, a standards organization, a research and development organization, an advocacy organization, a provider of training and education, and a nonprofit organization. Founded as an engineering society focused on mechanical engineering in North America, ASME is today multidisciplinary and global.

A civil conspiracy is a form of conspiracy involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A form of collusion, a conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy.

In United States law, treble damages is a term that indicates that a statute permits a court to triple the amount of the actual/compensatory damages to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. Treble damages are usually a multiple of, rather than an addition to, actual damages, but on occasion they are additive, as in California Civil Code § 1719. When such damages are multiplicative and a person received an award of $100 for an injury, a court applying treble damages would raise the award to $300.

James McCoy Smith is an American former professional football player who was a defensive back for the Washington Redskins of the National Football League (NFL). He played high school football at Kearny High School in San Diego and college football for the Oregon Ducks. He was nicknamed "Yazoo" because he was born in Yazoo City, Mississippi. He was an All-American his senior year (1967), and was selected in the first round of the 1968 NFL/AFL draft. He was the first defensive back taken in the draft, and the twelfth player overall.

Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), also referred to as the Danbury Hatters' Case, is a United States Supreme Court case in United States labor law concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectively outlawed the secondary boycott as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, despite union arguments that their actions affected only intrastate commerce. It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union.

Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963), was a case of the United States Supreme Court which was decided May 20, 1963. It held that the duty of self-regulation imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws nor justify it in denying petitioners the direct-wire connections without the notice and hearing which they requested. Therefore, the Exchange's action in this case violated 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the NYSE is liable to petitioners under 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy". The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable fines does not apply to punitive-damage awards in civil cases when the United States is not a party.

Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (1951), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an agreement among competitors in interstate commerce to fix maximum resale prices of their products violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It stated that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

The Parker immunity doctrine is an exemption from liability for engaging in antitrust violations. It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so. The doctrine is named for the Supreme Court of the United States case in which it was initially developed, Parker v. Brown.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling 8–0 that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically motivated boycott.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court involving the right to make petitions to the government. The right to petition is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This case involved an accusation that one group of companies was using state and federal regulatory actions to eliminate competitors. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to petition is integral to the legal system but using lawful means to achieve unlawful restraint of trade is not protected.

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2013.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Association Law Handbook, Fourth Edition (2007) Jerald A. Jacobs, ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership.
  2. Professional Practices in Association Management, Second Edition, (2007) Executive Editor John, B. Cox; ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership.