F. E. Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
F. E. HARRISON, Appellant v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., Et Al.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this private suit under the antitrust laws the plaintiff who is the owner but not the operator of a motion picture theatre al!e»ed a conspiracy by the defendants unreasonably to restrain trade by denying first run pictures to her theatre. The case was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict for the defendants upon which judgment was entered. A motion by the plaintiff for * judgment n. o. v. or a new trial was denied and the present appeal followed, Upon thig appea] the plaintiff urges that she is entitled to judgment n. o. v., in the 1¡gM of the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 66 F.Supp. 323 ; Id., 70 F.Supp. 323 ; Id., 70 F.Supp. 53 affirmed in part and reverged in part 334 U.S. 131 , 68 S.Ct. 915 , 92 L.Ed. 1260 , final decree 85 F.Supp. 881 , affirmed Loew’s, Inc., v. United States, 339 U.S. 974 , 70 S.Ct. 1031 , 94 L.Ed. 1380 , because no issue was created which could be submitted to the jury on the impact upon the facts of her case of the conspiracy found to exist in the Paramount case and because she was a per-gon injured, and therefore entitled to sue, under the Clayton Act even though she was a non-operating theatre owner. She also urges that she is in any event ent^ed a. new because of the adegcd coercion of a juror by the trial judge and because of errors in the charge of the trial judge to the jury.
All of the foregoing contentions were presented to the district court on the motion for judgment n. o. v. or a new trial.
*406 They were all fully eonsidéred and correctly decided against the plaintiff in an able and comprehensive opinion filed by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, 115 F.Supp. 312 . We find ourselves in complete accord with his reasoning and conclusions and need add nothing thereto.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, see 115 F. Supp. 312 (E.D. Pa. 1953), which held that a movie theater lessor was too remote from antitrust harm directed at movie distributors)
Cited by 27 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Miners Ville Coal Co. v. Anthracite Export Ass'n
- The Cromar Company v. Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation and Atlantic Richfield Company
- Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew's
- Arthur H. Pitchford and Pitchford Scientific Instruments Corporation v. Pepi, Inc.
- Lloyd L. Hayes, Hayes, Inc. v. T. G. Solomon, Gulf States Theatres, Inc.
- Aaron Bravman v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. And Bassett Mirror Co., Inc
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.