Dairy Queen v Wood

Case Name: Dairy Queen v. Wood 369 U.S. 469 (1962)

Facts: Wood had been using the Dairy Queen trademark for his businesses. He had paid the company to use this trademark in certain areas of Pennsylvania, but Dairy Queen believed that he had breached the contract. They filed for an injunction keeping Wood from using the trademark and from collecting money from the trademark. They also sued for damages.

Procedural History: The District Court denied Wood's timely request for a trial by jury. The District Court felt that this case dealt with “purely equitable” damages. This then meant that the protections of the Seventh Amendment did not apply. The Court of Appeals denied a request to vacate the District Court's decision.

Issue: Did the lower courts err in not allowing Wood the right to have his case decided by a jury trial? Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover found that where both equitable and legal issues are raised the case is to be decided by a jury.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that Wood had a constitutional right to a civil trial decided by jury in this case. The District Court's ruling to deny the jury trial was illegal, and the Court of Appeals should have granted the request to have the District Court's ruling vacated.

Reasoning: Scott v. Neely (1891) decided that where both equitable and legal issues were together, there was to be one trial to avoid inconvenience. They also believed that the denial of the seventh amendment right was only permissible when it was found that the “equitable” clause was used under “the most imperative circumstances.” Dairy Queen had tried to label the damages as equitable because they had referred to them as “accounting” instead of “debts” or “damages.” It was ruled that the wording does not change the claims.

Concurrence: Justice Harlan and Justice Douglas concurred with the ruling. The believed the case was to have been decided by a jury. They believed that the “accounting” desired in an “equitable” case form must be the type that can only be decided by a court of equity. The belief of Justice Harlan and Justice Douglas was that a jury could have easily decided the damages in this case. Therefore, the need for an equity court was not reasonable.

Comments: In my opinion, the Court's reversal of this decision was the right call to make. I do not understand how the District Court had denied the right to a jury in this instance because I cannot see how this case could be classified as strictly equitable. I find myself leaning more towards the concurring opinion in this case because I feel that it makes the decision pretty clear and easy to understand.