F. E. Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 211 F.2d 405 (3rd Cir. 1954). · Go Syfert
Search
F. E. Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 211 F.2d 405 (3rd Cir. 1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
78 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The Cromar Company v. Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation and Atlantic Richfield Company (ca3, 1976-09-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Cromar Company v. Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation and Atlantic Richfield Company
3rd Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Since this Court found itself in "complete accord with . . . (the district court's) reasoning and conclusions," we must look to the district court's opinion. 211 F.2d at 406. 35 The district court in Harrison recognized that "(i)t is not possible to formulate any general rule by which to determine what injuries are too remote to bring a plaintiff within the scope of the Act . . . .
cited Cited "see" New Jersey Wood Finishing Company v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Essexwire Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, 115 F.Supp. 312 (E.D.Pa.1953), affirmed 211 F.2d 405 (3 Cir. 1954).
discussed Cited "see" Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., in No. 12750 v. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference, in No. 12751
3rd Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, D.C.E.D.Pa.1953, 115 F.Supp. 312, 316, 317 , affirmed per curiam on the opinion below 3 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 405 ; Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew’s, Inc., 3 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 518 , certiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 890 , 77 S.Ct. 128 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 85 . .
discussed Cited "see" Congress Building Corporation v. Loew's, Incorporated (2×)
7th Cir. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., D.C.E.D.Pa., 115 F.Supp. 312 , affirmed 3 Cir., 211 F.2d 405 , certiorari denied 348 U.S. 828 , 75 S.Ct. 45 , 99 L.Ed. 653 ; Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew’s, Inc., 3 Cir., 234 F.2d 518 , certiorari denied 352 U.S. 890 , 77 S.Ct. 128 , 1 L.Ed.2d 85 ; Productive Inventions, Inc., v. Trico Products Corp., 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 678 , certiorari denied 350 U.S. 936 , 76 S.Ct. 301 , 100 L.Ed. 818 (these cases will be considered shortly).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew’s, Inc., 234 F.2d 518 , 519 (3d Cir.1956) (per curiam); see also Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 211 F.2d 405, 405 (3d Cir.1954) (affirming for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, see 115 F.Supp. 312 (E.D.Pa.1953), which held that a movie theater lessor was too remote from antitrust harm directed at movie distributors).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Illinois v. General Paving Company and F. F. Mengel Company
7th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 115 F.Supp. 312 (E.D.Pa.1953), affirmed, 211 F.2d 405 (3d Cir. 1954); Richfield Oil Corp. v. Karseal Corp., 271 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1959); Eagle Lion v. Loew’s Inc., 248 F.2d 438 (2 Cir. 1957), affirmed per curiam, 358 U.S. 100 , 79 S.Ct. 218 , 3 L.Ed.2d 147 ; State of Michigan v. Morton Salt Co., 259 F.Supp. 35, 64-65 (D.Minn.1966); Ida Amusement Corp. v. RKO Pictures Corp., 1954 Trade Cases ¶ 67,837 at p. 69,709 (S.D.N.Y.1954).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." VTR, INCORPORATED v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
S.D.N.Y. · 1969 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 115 F.Supp. 312 (E.D.Pa.1953), aff’d, 211 F.2d 405 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 828 , 75 S.Ct. 45 , 99 L.Ed. 653 (1954) and Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew’s, Inc., 234 F.2d 518 , (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 890 , 77 S.Ct. 128 , 1 L.Ed.2d 85 (1956) with Congress Building Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 246 F.2d 587 (7th Cir. 1957). 7 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
F. E. HARRISON, Appellant
v.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., Et Al.
11194.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 6, 1954.
211 F.2d 405
Harry Norman Ball, Philadelphia, Pa. (Morris L. Weisberg, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., Earl G. Harrison, Louis J. Goffman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wm. A. Schnader, Ar-lin M. Adams, Philadelphia, Pa., Schnadcr, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., Morris Wolf, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., Mitchell E. Panzer, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Maris, McLaughlin, Hastie.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this private suit under the antitrust laws the plaintiff who is the owner but not the operator of a motion picture theatre al!e»ed a conspiracy by the defendants unreasonably to restrain trade by denying first run pictures to her theatre. The case was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict for the defendants upon which judgment was entered. A motion by the plaintiff for * judgment n. o. v. or a new trial was denied and the present appeal followed,

Upon thig appea] the plaintiff urges that she is entitled to judgment n. o. v., in the 1¡gM of the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 66 F.Supp. 323; Id., 70 F.Supp. 323; Id., 70 F.Supp. 53 affirmed in part and reverged in part 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260, final decree 85 F.Supp. 881, affirmed Loew’s, Inc., v. United States, 339 U.S. 974, 70 S.Ct. 1031, 94 L.Ed. 1380, because no issue was created which could be submitted to the jury on the impact upon the facts of her case of the conspiracy found to exist in the Paramount case and because she was a per-gon injured, and therefore entitled to sue, under the Clayton Act even though she was a non-operating theatre owner. She also urges that she is in any event ent^ed a. new because of the adegcd coercion of a juror by the trial judge and because of errors in the charge of the trial judge to the jury.

All of the foregoing contentions were presented to the district court on the motion for judgment n. o. v. or a new trial.[*406] They were all fully eonsidéred and correctly decided against the plaintiff in an able and comprehensive opinion filed by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, 115 F.Supp. 312. We find ourselves in complete accord with his reasoning and conclusions and need add nothing thereto.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.