had notice, and with which they were never confronted.
36. There are nowhere in the Rules and Bylaws of the
Association any express provisions governing the conduct of any
hearing at which a member violation is in issue, or the rights of
any party involved in such a hearing. Furthermore, in the view of
the Board of Directors, it has unfettered discretion as to the
nature and duration of the disciplinary sanctions it may impose.
37. Plaintiffs were advised of their indefinite suspension by
a letter dated October 29, 1973. (Pl. Ex. 24) That letter gave no
reasons for Plaintiffs' indefinite suspension.
38. On November 18, 1973, the Board of Directors of the
Association met in Chicago. Plaintiffs caused to be delivered to
that meeting a letter offering Billerose Lad for blood typing.
This offer was rejected by the Board.
39. On November 19, 1973, at the Annual Convention of the
Association, the delegates affirmed the Board decision of October
24, 1973. The convention of delegates was not, however, apprised
of Plaintiffs' offer to the Board of Directors the previous day
relative to the blood typing of Billerose Lad.
40. As a result of their indefinite suspension from membership
in the American Angus Association, McCreery Angus Farms is
prohibited from registering its newly born purebred Black
Aberdeen Angus cattle, transferring title to, or exhibiting its
registered purebred Black Aberdeen Angus cattle.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The conduct to be enjoined is in furtherance of the alleged
2. The Plaintiffs have established that they have a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits.
3. A group boycott is illegal per se.
4. The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury unless the
requested relief is granted.
5. The Plaintiffs' remedy at law is inadequate.
6. Any possible injury which may inure to the Defendants by
reason of granting such relief is not irreparable, and when
compared to the injury the Plaintiffs would suffer, is
7. The issuance of a preliminary injunction will maintain the
8. Any Finding of Fact which should be deemed a Conclusion of
Law is hereby adopted as such.
In order to prevail on its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction,
the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) They have at least a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) Their remedy
at law is inadequate and they will be irreparably injured unless
the injunction issues; and (3) The balance of hardships tips in
its favor. Milsen Co. v. Southland Corp., 454 F.2d 363, 367 (7th
Cir. 1971); Pure Food Products, Inc. v. American Bakeries
Company, 356 F. Supp. 701, 702 (N.D.Ill. 1973).
The Plaintiffs argue that their indefinite suspension by the
Defendant Association constitutes a group boycott in clear
violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1, 2 (1970).
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1970)
provides in part:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust
or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States . . . is declared
to be illegal . . ."
Section 2 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1970) states that it is