A synopsis of

The Mack Moore and Roseborough Cases

Carolyn Jacobi is the Founder and CEO of Eternal Justice, Inc.
Shown below are some important facts about the
Mack Moore and Roseborough cases,
two land mark decisions affecting the memorial industry.

It was decided by the Mack Moore Cases and reaffirmed by the Roseborough Case that cemeteries could not tie the sale of memorials to their installation and that outside memorial dealers and installers are permitted to perform foundation and installation work subject to reasonable cemetery rules, regulations and specifications.?

Moore vs Jas Matthews & Col., 550 F.2d 1107 (9th Circ.>1977) called Moore II Cemeteries' exclusive unstallation rule constitued an illegal tie-in, which violated anti-trust laws.

Moore vs Jas Matthews & Col., NOS.80-3180 & 80-3217 (9th Circ.>July 29, 1982) called Moore III Cemeteries' exclusive unstallation rule constitued an illegal tie-in, prohibited by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

In Moore III the 9th Circuit Court said that it had already decided in Moore II that the cemeteries exclusive rule constituted an illegal tie-in which violated the anti-trust laws and there was no reason to reconsider itsd 1977 decision. In the 1977 decision Moore II the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court which had ruled that the exclusive rule was not a tie-in because sale of land and lot and installation services were part of a single package. Even if they were separate products the exclusive rule was necessary to protect the cemeteries' quality and image. This assertion by cemeteries was reversed by the courts.

Roseborough Monument Co. vs the Memorial Park Association , 666 F.2d 1130 (8th Circ. 1981 Roseborough II, cert Denied, 457 U.S. 1111 1982) In 1981 the 8th Circuit Court ruled that the exclsuive installation rules used by the 11 St. Louis area cemeteries violate Federal Anti-Trust Laws. The St. Louis decision, in effect, permitted anyone to perform foundations and installations subject to reasonable rules, regulations and specifications. On 6/7/82, the Supreme Court denied a petition for review and thereby confirmed the earlier decision. There was a subsequent appeal in the 8th Circuit Court (Nos 83-1498 and 83-2351 submitted Nov. 18, 1983, filed May 22, 1984 that related to damages but did not change the basic ruling of the previous decision.

Conclusions

While the Mack Moore case specifically denied cemeteries the right to exclusive installation, the Roseborough Case reaffirmed this but added that cemeteries did have the right to establish reasonable rules, regulations and specifications for anyone to perform that work. Roseborough also allowed cemeteries to establish performance bonds to ensure compliance with the cemeteries installation specifications. Also, cemeteries were allowed to create an inspection fee based on actual labor costs to inspect the finished work produced by the third party installer.

Eternal Justice
Protector and Guardian of and for the Departed

Click on the Scales of Justice to Enter