Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.

William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 164 F.2d 1021 (3d Cir. 1948)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-01-06
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The appellants insist that this court should review its previous decision, 3 Cir., 150 F.2d 738 and in effect reverse itself because, it is said, the court below on remand modified certain essential findings of fact. This, the appellants contend, necessitates a judgment in the appellants’ favor under Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 3 Cir., 136 F.2d 991. Out of an abundance of caution we have reexamined our previous ruling in the light of the entire record and find it to be correct.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
56 opinions
WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES v. LOEW'S, INC.,164 F.2d 1021(3rd Cir. 1948)
WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES, Inc., v. LOEW'S, Inc., et al.
No. 9324.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued October 21, 1947.
Decided January 6, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; William H. Kirkpatrick, Judge.

Action under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by William Goldman Theatres, Inc., against Loew's Inc., and others for injunctive relief and for damages alleged to have been incurred by plaintiff as result of a conspiracyPage 1022among the defendants to monopolize the motion picture business in Philadelphia. Judgment for plaintiff for damages and for injunctive relief,69 F. Supp. 103, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

See also, 3 Cir.,163 F.2d 241.
Bernard Segal, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Wm. A. Schnader, J. Pennington Straus, and Schnader, Kenworthey, Segal Lewis, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.

Joseph M. Proskauer, (Morris Wolf and J. Alvin Van Bergh, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Warner appellants.

William A. Gray, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Francis T. Anderson, Lester J. Schaffer, Robert Dechert, and Barnes, Dechert, Price, Smith Clark, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants insist that this court should review its previous decision, 3 Cir.,150 F.2d 738and in effect reverse itself because, it is said, the court below on remand modified certain essential findings of fact. This, the appellants contend, necessitates a judgment in the appellants' favor under Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 3 Cir.,136 F.2d 991. Out of an abundance of caution we have reexamined our previous ruling in the light of the entire record and find it to be correct. We are of the opinion now, as we were of the opinion then, that the principles of Interstate Circuit v. United States,306 U.S. 208, 225, 227, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 L.Ed. 610, rule the case at bar.

The appellants assert also that the injunction entered by the court below was too wide in scope. The sweep of the injunction is broad but in view of all the circumstances we cannot say that the learned trial judge abused his legal discretion in entering the decree.

We find also, contrary to the assertions of the appellants, that the evidence offered was competent and sufficient to prove the appellee's damages under Bigelow v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures,327 U.S. 251, 66 S.Ct. 574, 90 LEd. 652. Cf. the earlier decisions in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Material Co.,273 U.S. 359, 379, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684, and Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.,282 U.S. 555, 563, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544. This phase of the case at bar is most competently analyzed, as are its other aspects, in the opinion of the court below. See William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., D.C.,69 F. Supp. 103.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.Page 44