Opinion · District Court, S.D. New York

United States v. Shubert

United States v. Shubert, 120 F. Supp. 15 (District Court, S.D. New York 1953)

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1953-12-30
Topic
general

KNOX, Chief Judge. In principle, I can see no valid distinction between the facts of this case and those which were before the Supreme Court in the cases of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898, and Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78. Upon the authority of these adjudications the complaint in the above-entitled action will be dismissed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Shubert. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SHUBERT, (S.D.N.Y. 1953)
120 F. Supp. 15
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lee SHUBERT, Jacob J. Shubert,
Marcus Heiman, United Booking Office, Incorporated, Select Theatres
Corporation, L.A.B. Amusement Corporation, Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
December 30, 1953.
See, also, D.C., 14 F.R.D. 471.
Philip Marcus, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Klein Weir, New York City, for defendants Lee Shubert, Jacob J. Shubert and Select Theatres Corp.

Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, for defendants Marcus Heiman and United Booking Office, Inc.

Lipper, Shinn Keeley, New York City, for defendant L.A.B. Amusement Corp.West Page 16
KNOX, Chief Judge.
In principle, I can see no valid distinction between the facts of this case and those which were before the Supreme Court in the cases of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs,259 U.S. 200,42 S.Ct. 465,66 L.Ed. 898, and Toolson v. New York Yankees,346 U.S. 356,74 S.Ct. 78.

Upon the authority of these adjudications the complaint in the above-entitled action will be dismissed.West Page 26