![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
April 3, 1979, Argued ; July 20, 1979, Decided
Nos. 78-2328, 78-2330 to 78-2332
[*447] OPINION OF THE COURT
On October 29, 1976, a grand [**2] jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a one-count indictment charging five corporations and seven individuals with conspiring "to raise, fix, maintain and stabilize the prices and terms and conditions of sale of consumer bags" in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The indicted corporations were Continental Group, Inc. (Continental), American Bag & Paper Corporation (American), Chase Bag Company (Chase Bag), Harley Corporation (Harley Corp.), and St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis). The individual defendants were James K. Cooper (vice president and general manager of Continental's Flexible Packaging Division), Peter J. Weggeman (general sales manager of Continental's Flexible Packaging Division), David Mawicke (manager of paper product sales for Continental's Flexible Packing Division), Stanley A. Schottland (president of American), Harrison B. Rue (vice president of Chase Bag's Converting Division), William H. Versfelt (vice president and general divisional manager of St. Regis's Bag Packaging Division), and Edward W. Weikum (manager of converter sales and license relations in St. Regis's Bag Packaging Division).
As defined in the indictment, [**3] "consumer bags" are small, pre-formed paper containers used to package such products as pet foods, cookies, tea, coffee, kitty litter, chemicals, and agricultural products. The bags usually have printed exteriors designed as specified by the customer. They are often lined or coated. In addition to packages designed for consumer items, the term "consumer bags" also includes such coated paper containers as air sickness bags.
Prior to trial Harley Corp., American, and Schottland (American's president) pled nolo contendere. Beginning on September 30, 1977, the three remaining corporate defendants (Continental, Chase Bag, and St. Regis) and the six remaining individual defendants (Cooper, Weggeman, Mawicke, Rue, Versfelt, and Weikum) went to trial before a jury. At the close of the government's evidence, the district court granted motions for judgment of acquittal on behalf of Mawicke and Versfelt. After the close of all evidence the jury returned a verdict acquitting St. Regis, Weggeman, and Weikum and convicting Continental, Chase Bag, Cooper, and Rue.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
603 F.2d 444 *; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12989 **; 1979-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P62,782
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., Appellant in No. 78-2328, CHASE BAG COMPANY, Appellant in No. 78-2330, COOPER, JAMES K., Appellant in No. 78-2331, RUE, HARRISON B., Appellant in No. 78-2332.
Subsequent History: [**1] As Amended August 28, 1979.
Prior History: APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (Criminal Nos. 76-00514-01/03/06/10, E.D. Pa.)
Bag, conspiracy, prices, district court, Cooper, knowingly, meetings, effects, joined, appellants', consumer, withdrawal, fix prices, attended, hearsay, independent evidence, Sherman Act, beyond a reasonable doubt, alleged conspiracy, price list, anticompetitive, participated, conspiring, convicted, co-conspirators, manufacturers, declarations, trial judge, competitors, instructions
Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Evidence, Exemptions, Statements by Party Opponents, Hearsay, Statements by Coconspirators, Members of Conspiracy, Civil Procedure, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Relevance, Preservation of Relevant Evidence, Exclusion & Preservation by Prosecutors, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Elements, Trials, Motions for Acquittal, Reversible Error, Rule Components, Truth of Matter Asserted, Antitrust & Trade Law, Sherman Act, US Department of Justice Actions, Criminal Actions, Intent, Sherman Act, Jury Instructions