Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation
EXHIBITORS POSTER EXCHANGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL SCREEN SERVICE CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of anti-trust litigation of many years’ duration. The history of this litigation is outlined in The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, et al., 5 Cir., 1976, 542 F.2d 255 (No. 76-1870, Nov. 11, 1976, slip opinion p. 6517). Once again the appellant, Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc., urges that a summary judgment cannot have collateral estoppel effect. The same argument was urged to us and decided against this same appellant in Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc., v. National Screen Service Corporation, et al., 5 Cir., 1975, 517 F.2d 110 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 784 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976).
We said in that opinion:
*1107 “It would be strange indeed if a summary judgment could not have collateral estoppel effect. This would reduce the utility of this modern device to zero.” 517 F.2d at 115 .
Despite our pronouncement, despite our denials of rehearings by panel and en banc, and despite the Supreme Court’s declining certiorari in this matter, the appellant nevertheless began yet another lawsuit in the district court which, upon its termination by summary judgment in favor of the yet-again appellees, confronts us with precisely the same issue. In its brief the appellant states that it is re-litigating the same issue with admitted forlorn hope that we will overrule our previous decision.
The appellees have filed in this Court a motion for damages for frivolous appeal under Rule 38, F.R.A.P. The motion is well taken. Appellees have again been required to file pleadings and brief, incur costs and attorneys’ fees to protect their interests. These expenses were necessitated only by frivolous litigation. We remand this case to the district court to determine the amount of costs and damages to be paid to the appellees, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1912 .
Appellees have also filed a motion for an injunction prohibiting the appellant from future litigation against them based on the same cause of action. The motion is filed of first instance in this Court. We are without jurisdiction to consider this request since there is no final or otherwise appealable decision of the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1292;
Wooten v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 27 . Nor can it be considered an application for the exercise of our supervisory authority because the relief sought is not in aid of our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651 .
The judgment of the district court is affirmed and the case is remanded for a determination of damages and costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey Clement
- Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corp.
- Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary
- David Rosenburg and Melia Rosenburg v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Company, a Corporation
- Ivey Hugh Rutherford v. Exxon Company, U.S.A.
- The Dow Chemical Company v. M/v Gulf Seas, Its Tackle, Etc., in Rem, Gulf Mississippi Marine Corporation
Most recent
- Meador v. Oryx Energy Co.
- David Rosenburg and Melia Rosenburg v. Lincoln American Life Insurance Company, a Corporation
- Ivey Hugh Rutherford v. Exxon Company, U.S.A.
- John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey Clement
- Pelham D. CHASTANG, Jr. v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services
- Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary
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.