Legal Opinion
Cardinal Films v. Republic Pictures Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 4, 1957PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EDELSTEIN, District Judge.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., in an action for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Plaintiff, Cardinal Films, Inc., is engaged in the business of distributing motion pictures, prints and film in 16mm widths, for rental and exhibition by others throughout the United States. Defendant, Republic Pictures Corporation, is engaged in the production and distribution of motion pictures and in licensing the right to distribute them. In connection with its business, it processes film; that is, it…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, Columbia Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- The Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation, the Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- Susser v. Carvel CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.