WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES, INC.,
v.
LOEW'S, INC., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed its prior decision and the lower court's judgment, finding no error in the findings of fact, the scope of the injunction, or the sufficiency of evidence for damages.
Appellants argued that the lower court modified essential findings of fact after a prior appeal, necessitating a judgment in their favor. They also ch…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Damages Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants insist that this court should review its previous decision, 3 Cir., 150 F. 2d 738 and in effect reverse itself because, it is said, the court below on remand modified certain essential findings of fact. This, the appellants contend, necessitates a judgment in the appellants’ favor under Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 3 Cir., 136 F. 2d 991. Out of an abundance of caution we have reexamined our previous ruling in the light of the entire record and find it to be correct. We are of the opinion now, as we were of the opinion then, that the principles of Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 225, 227, 59 S.Ct. 467, ,83 L.Ed. 610, rule the case at bar. The appellants assert also that the injunction entered by the court below was too wide in scope. The sweep of the injunction is broad but in view of all the circumstances we cannot say that the learned trial judge abused his legal discretion in entering the decree.
We find also, contrary to the assertions of the appellants, that the evidence offered was competent and sufficient to prove the appellee’s damages under Bigelow v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 66 S.Ct. 574, 90 LEd. 652. Cf. the earlier decisions in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Material Co., 273 U.S. 359, 379, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684, and Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 563, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544. This phase of the case at bar is most competently analyzed, as are its other aspects, in the opinion of the court below. See William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew’s Inc., D.C., 69 F.Supp. 103.
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1955)
-
The Flintkote Co. v. Lysfjord, 246 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. 1957)
-
Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 297 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1931)
- Eastman Kodak Co. of N.Y. v. S. Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1927)
- Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1946)
- Interstate Cir., Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (U.S. 1939)
- William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 150 F.2d 738 (3d Cir. 1945)
- Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 136 F.2d 991 (3d Cir. 1943)
- WM. Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 163 F.2d 241 (3d Cir. 1947)