1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 428 F.2d
  5. 428 F.2d 1375 (1970)
 

SPRINGFIELD TELEVISION, INC. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MO.

No. 19909.

428 F.2d 1375 (1970)

SPRINGFIELD TELEVISION, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Independent Broadcasting Company, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, and Springfield (Mo)-CATV, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Arch A. Watson, John O. Cooper, Keith G. Wells, G. Pearson Ward and Ralph Stufflebaum, Suing for Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. The CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, David R. Burkhalter, City Manager of the City of Springfield, E. L. Anderson, Lucille Upton, David James, James F. Payne, Lauren Nance, Gus Wickman, Carl Stillwell, Joe Bill Turner and Clyde H. Martin, Members of and Constituting the Council of the City of Springfield, Missouri, Carl Stillwell, Mayor of Springfield, Missouri, and International Telemeter of Springfield Corp., a Missouri Corporation, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 23, 1970.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard Farrington, of Farrington, Curtis & Strong, Springfield, Mo., for appellants; John K. Hulston, Springfield, Mo., and Mayte Boylan Hardie, Springfield, Mo., were on the brief with Mr. Farrington.

Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., of Lathrop, Righter, Gordon & Parker, Kansas City, Mo., for appellees; F. B. Freeman, of Neale, Newman, Bradshaw & Freeman, Springfield, Mo., was on the brief with Mr. Stevens (attorneys for International Telemeter of Springfield Corp.). Don G. Busch, Springfield, Mo., filed brief for appellee City of Springfield.

Before MATTHES, MEHAFFY and LAY, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissing appellants' complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. We hold that the district court possessed jurisdiction and accordingly reverse for further proceedings.

The salient facts in this controversy are set forth in appellants' complaint. For the purpose of the motion to dismiss, we are obliged to regard as...

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