1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 362 F.2d
  5. 362 F.2d 980 (1966)
 

VIKING THEATRE CORP. v. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP.

No. 15656.

362 F.2d 980 (1966)

VIKING THEATRE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, Columbia Pictures Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., United Artists Corporation, Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (formerly Loew's, Inc.), Stanley Warner Management Corp., Stanley Company of America, William Goldman Theatres, Inc., and Fox Philadelphia Building, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Decided July 1, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David I. Shivitz, New York City, (Halperin, Shivitz, Scholer & Steingut, New York City, Harry M. Pimstein, New York City, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., Peter A. Eisenberg, New York City, Harry M. Pimstein, New York City, Hugh G. Moulton, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

W. Bradley Ward, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., Columbia Pictures Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. and Paramount Film Distributing Corporation.

Louis J. Goffman, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent, Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation.

Morris Wolf, Franklin Poul, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents, Stanley Warner Management Corporation and Stanley Co. of America.

Charles F. Young, New York City, Ralph Earle, II, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and Fox Philadelphia Building, Inc.

Edwin P. Rome, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent, William Goldman Theatres, Inc.

Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and GANEY, Circuit Judges.

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an anti-trust suit which was dismissed summarily prior to trial.

A related action between substantially the same parties and covering an earlier time period had been tried before the same judge who had directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. This court affirmed that judgment. Certiorari was thereafter applied for on behalf of the appellant plaintiff. While that application was pending, the present litigation was called...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases