368 U.S. 464 (1962)
In 1954 Midwest Broadcasting Company owned and operated WCAN, an ultra high frequency broadcasting station located in Milwaukee that was affiliated with the Columbia Broadcasting System network and was of the alleged value of $2,000,000.1 Lou Poller is the assignee of the dissolved Midwest Broadcasting Company and brought suit against Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., CBS-TV, J. L. Van Volkenburg, President of CBS-TV, H. K. Akerberg, Vice President of CBS-TV, Bartell Broadcasters, Inc., and Thad Holt.2
Poller charged that the respondents entered into an unlawful conspiracy under which Holt was to secure in his name an option to purchase WOKY, a competing but inferior UHF broadcaster in Milwaukee.3 When and if the Federal Communications Commission amended its multiple ownership rules so as to permit CBS to own UHF stations in addition to its VHF ones, Holt was to assign his option to CBS, which would cancel its affiliation agreement with WCAN and consummate its purchase of WOKY, placing WCAN in the position of competing with the two major national networks.4
The alleged conspiracy was so successful that CBS acquired WCAN facilities at a loss of $1,460,000 to Midwest, after which WCAN continued in business only ten days following CBS's commencement of broadcasts on February 17, 1955.5 CBS discontinued UHF broadcasting in Milwaukee in 1959 when it became affiliated with a Milwaukee VHF station.6 Lee Bartell sold WOKY to CBS at a $50,000 profit and Thad Holt received $10,000 from the transaction.7
The district court granted summary judgment of dismissal and the Court of Appeals affirmed.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.9 At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the record included the affidavits of Richard Salant, Vice President of CBS, Jay Eliasberg, Director of its Research Division, Lee Bartell, and Thad Holt, supplemented by material taken from petitioner's depositions of Salant and CBS President Frank Stanton together with a deposition of Holt that included an exhibit showing a complete analysis furnished by CBS of the Milwaukee market.10
Whether this treble damage action based on alleged violations of the restraint of trade and monopoly sections of the Sherman Act was rightly terminated by a summary judgment of dismissal?11
Summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be entered only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and admissions filed in the case show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. This rule authorizes summary judgment only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is, and where no genuine issue remains for trial, for the purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try.12
No. These materials left open genuine issues as to the existence of a conspiracy involving independent actors Holt and Bartell to restrain trade in the Milwaukee television market, to eliminate WCAN, and to secure its facilities at depressed prices.13 The evidence also raised factual questions about the purpose to destroy UHF broadcasting and the motives of the participants, which are central in complex antitrust litigation where proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators.14
The summary judgment of dismissal was not rightly entered because there existed genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan dissented on the ground that the antitrust laws do not fit this case.16 He believed the courts below were correct in holding that the respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.17 Harlan found that the pretrial discovery record disclosed that petitioner could not prove an unlawful motive to eliminate all UHF stations in the Milwaukee area or reduce their number from two to one.18
He concluded that the arrangement to cancel the affiliation and purchase the competing station did not offend the Sherman Act.19 Harlan emphasized that petitioner had complete access to evidence through discovery yet produced no evidence of unlawful purpose.20 He stressed that summary judgment serves to obviate trials that would serve no useful purpose, particularly in antitrust cases prone to vexatious litigation.21