VIKING THEATRE CORP.

v.

PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Admiral Theatre Corp. v. The Douglas Theatre Co., 585 F.2d 877 (8th Cir. 1978)
  …nferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible, and may not be permitted to resort to speculation.” Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 320 F. 2d 285, 296 (3d Cir. 1963), aff’d by an equally divided court, 378 U.S. 123, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964); see Twin City Plaza, Inc. v. Central Sur. & Ins. Corp., 409 F. 2d 1195, 1202-03 n. 8 (8th Cir. 1969). When the evidence is so one-sided as to leave no room for any reasonable difference of opinion as to how the ease should be…
• Dahl, Inc. v. ROY Cooper Co., Inc., 448 F.2d 17 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …cert. denied, 379 U.S. 880, 85 S.Ct. 143, 13 L.Ed.2d 87 (1964), served to exclude Dahl from the market or give it any antitrust claim. See Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distr. Corp., 320 F. 2d 285, 292-293 (3d Cir.1963), aff’d. per curiam, 378 U.S. 123, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964); Seago v. North Carolina Theatres Inc., 42 F.R.D. 627, 638 (E.D.Cal.1966), aff’d. per curiam, 388 F. 2d 987 (4th Cir. 1967). Dahl could still bid for the films, even though members of the split were committed no…
• Roesch, Inc. v. Star Cooler Corp., 671 F.2d 1168 (8th Cir. 1982)
  …to resort to speculation.” Admiral Theatre Corp. v. Douglas Theatre Co., supra, 585 F. 2d at 883 (quoting Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 320 F. 2d 285, 296 (3d Cir. 1963), aff’d by an equally divided court, 378 U.S. 123, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964)). The district court correctly prevented the jury from speculating on the existence of a conspiracy on the basis of such meager evidence.8 We have examined Roesch’s other arguments regarding the exclusion of written contracts…