Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation (1965)
- Docket
- 4
- Decided
- 1965-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Is Leh's claim similar enough to that made by the government in Standard Oil to justify his use of collateral estoppel? Was Leh's claim valid because the Clayton Act suspended the running of the statute of limitations? Conclusion: Yes and yes. Justice Thomas White, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Leh is not required to allege equivalent means, objectives and conspiracy to rely on Standard Oil . Relying on the Court's 1965 decision in Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co. , Justice White emphasized giving effect to the broad terms of the Clayton Act and Congress' belief that antitrust litigation is one of the surest weapons for effective enforcement of antitrust laws. He noted that six of the seven defendants were named in both Leh's claim and the United States' in Standard Oil , and that the United States similarly alleged an intention to eliminate the competition of independent refiners. Thus, Leh's pending case halted the tolling of the statute of limitations under the Clayton Act, and his claim was still valid. Justices John Harlan and Abraham Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.