Eagle Lion Studios, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., 358 U.S. 100 (1958). · Go Syfert
Eagle Lion Studios, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., 358 U.S. 100 (1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: International Shoe MacHine Corporation v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation (ca1, 1963-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" International Shoe MacHine Corporation v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation (3×)
1st Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Eagle Lion Studios, Inc. v. Loew’s, Inc., 248 F.2d 438 , 444, 445 (2nd Cir., 1957), aff’d per curiam by an equally divided Court, 358 U.S. 100 , 79 S.Ct. 218 , 3 L.Ed.2d 147 (1958); Shotkin v. General Electric Co., 171 F.2d 236, 238 (10th Cir., 1948).
discussed Cited "see" Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. City of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See separate opinion of Judge Dye in Kingsley International Pictures Corporation v. Regents, 1958, 4 N.Y.2d 349 , 175 N.Y.S. 2d 39 , 151 N.E.2d 197 , appeal pending United States Supreme Court, 358 U.S. 897 , 79 S.Ct. 221 , 3 L.Ed.2d 147 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EAGLE LION STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.
v.
LOEW'S INC. ET AL.
17.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 24, 1958.
358 U.S. 100
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

William L. McGovern argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Norman Diamond, Abe Krash and Seymour Krieger.

S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr. argued the cause for Loew's Incorporated, respondent. With him on the brief was Henry L. King.

Edward C. Raftery argued the cause for RKO Theatres, Inc., et al., respondents. With him on the brief was George A. Raftery.

Oscar H. Davis, then Acting Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Henry Geller filed a brief for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.