LOEW'S, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES; WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; AND UNITED STATES V. LOEW'S, INC. ET AL.
LOEW'S, INC.
UNITED STATES; WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; AND UNITED STATES V. LOEW'S, INC. ET AL.
339 U.S. 974
Supreme Court of the United States (1950)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 28 cases
Per_curiam
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the cases set down for argument. Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Brown Shoe Co., Inc. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1962)…Paramount Pictures, 70 F. Supp. 53, 72, 75 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), 2 D. & J. 1682, modified, 334 U. S. 131, revised in accordance with this Court’s mandate, 85 F. Supp. 881, 898-901, 2 D. & J. 1690, affirmed sub nom. Loeiu’s, Inc., v. United States, 339 U. S. 974, in which review did await the entry of specific and detailed provisions for disposition of the defendants’ assets. Cf. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 362; Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120; Coh…1 / 2
-
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1976)…s. 8 Wigmore § 2291, and §2306, p. 590; McCormick §87, p. 175, §92, p. 192; Baird v. Koerner, 279 F. 2d 623 (CA9 1960); Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F. 2d 352 (CA5 1942); Prichard v. United States, 181 F. 2d 326 (CA6), aff’d per curiam, 339 U. S. 974 (1950); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F. 2d 855 (CA8 1956); United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F. 2d 280 (CA6 1964). As a practical matter, if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following disclo…
-
Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1974)…ified, wholly or in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the laws and Constitution of the United States.” Prichard v. United States, 181 F. [*227] 2d 326, 331 (CA6), aff’d due to absence of quorum, 339 U. S. 974 (1950). Every voter in a federal primary election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distort…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence