U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1954

The G. & P. Amusement Company v. Regent Theater Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided November 16, 1954 · Allen, Martin, Miller, Per Curiam

216 F.2d 749; 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4650; 1954 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,888 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Samuel T. Gaines, Cleveland, Ohio (Bennett Yanowitz, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants., Luther Day and Jerome N. Curtis, Cleveland, Ohio (Charles R. Berne, Jordan C. Band, Thomas M. Harman, George H. Rudolph, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Orbo Theatre Corporation v. Loew's (District Court, District of Columbia 1957)
Packard Motor Car Company v. The Webster Motor Car Company, the Webster Motor Car Company v. Packard Motor Car Company (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Webster Motor Car Co. v. Packard Motor Car Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1955)
Admiral Theatre Corp. v. Douglas Theatre Co. (United States District Court, Nebraska 1977)
Sunny Hill Farms Dairy Co. v. KRAFTCO CORPORATION (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1974)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Samuel Goldwyn (9th Cir. 1964)
Clark Marine Corporation v. Cargill, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1964)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Goldwyn (9th Cir. 1964)
Richfield Oil Corporation v. Karseal Corporation (9th Cir. 1959)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the amended and supplemental complaint of appellant and entered judgment for appellees in this action for treble damages brought by appellant against the appellee motion picture distributors and exhibitors for alleged violation of sections 1, 2 and 7 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§15 and 26.

We have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, the record in the case, the comprehensive and logically reasoned opinion of District Judge Freed, 107 F.Supp. 453, together with his eighty-seven findings of fact, which are supported by substantial evidence and certainly are not clearly erroneous, and his seven conclusions of law, sustained by highest authority. Upon the *750 basis of his opinion, findings and conelusions, we are of opinion that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed, and that no worthwhile contribution would be made by this court by attempting to re-write in our own words the excellent opinion of the District Judge, who gave most conscientious study to the problems presented and has stated accurate conclusions,

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.