WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING CO.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

U.S. | 1960-12-19
No. 484
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted., Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the opinion that the motion to affirm should be granted.
364 U.S. 518 Supreme Court of the United States (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the opinion that the motion to affirm should be granted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. EL Paso Natural GAS Co., 386 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1967)
    …antitrust suits.16 Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 322 U. S. 137; Partmar Corp. v. United States, 338 U. S. 804; Wometco Television & Theatre Co. v. United States, 355 U. S. 40; Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 364 U. S. 518, dismissing appeal from 186 F. Supp. 776; Sam Fox Publishing Co. v. United States, supra; Bardy v. United States, 371 U. S. 576.17 And we have upheld [*152] denial of intervention to a private party who claimed that a decree negotiated between the G…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw