TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

In re PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORPORATION. CRAVATH, DE GERSDORFF, SWAINE & WOOD v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc. (formerly Paramount Publix Corporation)

Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 83 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 4, 1936
Docket
No. 333
Judges
Manton
Citations
83 F.2d 4081936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2539

Opinion of the Court — Manton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The law firm of Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood was attorney for Kuhn, Loeb & Co., who, we held in a decision filed this day, In re Paramount Publix Corporation, 83 F.(2d) 406 , were agents for various committees in the reorganization proceedings under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act ( 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 ) for the Paramount Publix Corporation. As stated in that opinion, this law firm rendered legal services in the preparation of the plan of reorganization carried on from June 7, 1934, until the withdrawal of their client, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., on November 8, 1934. The character of the legal services performed and the benefits arising from them are sufficiently described in the opinion filed in the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Case. In addition, disbursements of $812.15 were incurred. The authorization to Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to proceed with the preparation of a plan of reorganization necessarily implied that competent counsel would assist in the performance of this function delegated by the committees, and, further, the committees placed the company’s records at counsel’s disposal in their work of assisting in formulating a plan. As such counsel, they may be compensated within the statute’s provision for attorneys. For the services rendered in these reorganization proceedings under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, an allowance should be granted of $60,000, plus disbursements.

The order appealed from is reversed, with directions to provide accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 21937: 21938: 11942: 119362026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dee v. United Exchange Bldg., Inc.88 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1937)
  2. Kargman v. Grocery Center, Inc.91 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1937)
  3. Fuller v. Memphis Street Ry. Co.86 F.2d 891 (6th Cir. 1936)
  4. Walker & Austin v. Tyler130 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1942)
  5. West v. Fradenburg, Webb, Beber, Klutznick & Kelley86 F.2d 318 (8th Cir. 1936)
  6. Mitchell v. Whitman94 F.2d 917 (8th Cir. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Walker & Austin v. Tyler130 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1942)
  2. Mitchell v. Whitman94 F.2d 917 (8th Cir. 1938)
  3. Kargman v. Grocery Center, Inc.91 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1937)
  4. Dee v. United Exchange Bldg., Inc.88 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1937)
  5. West v. Fradenburg, Webb, Beber, Klutznick & Kelley86 F.2d 318 (8th Cir. 1936)
  6. Fuller v. Memphis Street Ry. Co.86 F.2d 891 (6th Cir. 1936)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. v. Paramount Publix Corp., 83 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1936) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list