Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
(Redirected from Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.)
| Matsushita v. Zenith Ratio Corp. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Argued November 12, 1985 Decided March 26, 1986 |
|||||
| Full case name | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. | ||||
| Citations | 475 U.S. 574 (more) | ||||
| Holding | |||||
| To survive a motion for a summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking damages for a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act must present evidence "that tends to exclude the possibility" that the alleged conspirators acted independently, such that the inference of a conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed respondents. | |||||
| Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
| Case opinions | |||||
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Marshall, Rehnquist, O'Connor | ||||
| Dissent | White, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens | ||||
| Laws applied | |||||
| Sherman Antitrust Act, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | |||||
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), was an antitrust case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It raised the standard for surviving summary judgment to unambiguous evidence that tends to exclude an innocent interpretation. Specifically, the issue was whether there was a horizontal "agreement" between Matsushita Electric and Zenith Electronics which the Court held that the evidence must tend to exclude the possibility of independent action to be sufficient to survive summary judgment.
See also
External links
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
 |
This article relating to case law in the United States, or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
