United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc.

Facts

1. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   In November, 1981, a luncheon meeting was held in Dayton, Ohio, and attended by Handler, Borack, Beaupain, and Beaupain’s boss, Blair Mooney.

2. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   Handler replied that “Tri-State would not call on any Co-Operative Theatres’ accounts.”

3. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   The government also called on three other theater owners who testified that Tri-State had called on them prior to November, 1981, but had subsequently refused their business on the grounds that Tri-State and Co-Op had an agreement not to take each other’s customers.

4. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   One of the theater owners further testified that he also contacted the President of Co-Op, Blair Mooney, who confirmed the existence of the agreement between Co-Op and Tri-State.

5. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   the standard of review is whether the relevant evidence could be accepted by a reasonably minded jury as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

6. 1 Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers satisfied proved

   we find that the direct evidence presented through Handler’s testimony when viewed in favor of the government was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that defendants had entered into an illegal agreement not to seek business from each other’s accounts