Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Paramount Film Dist. Corp.

Poster Exch., Inc. v. Paramount Film Dist. Corp., 340 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1965)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-01-22
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a summary judgment which was entered against plaintiff-appellant in a private antitrust action seeking treble damages for an alleged violation of the Sherman Act. We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court committed no error. 1 The judgment is affirmed, D.C., 35 F.R.D. 558. 1 . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Dressier v. M.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Paramount Film Dist. Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
POSTER EXCHANGE, INC. v. PARAMOUNT FILM DIST.,340 F.2d 320(5th Cir. 1965)
The POSTER EXCHANGE, INC., Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT FILM DIST. CORP. et
al., Appellees.
No. 21318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 22, 1965.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Lewis R. Morgan, Judge.
Francis T. Anderson, Philadelphia, Pa., Nolan B. Harmon, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Robert S. Sams, Atlanta, Ga., Walter S. Beck, New York City, Tench C. Coxe, Troutman, Sams, Schroder Lockerman, Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Gambrell, Harlan, Russell Moye, Atlanta, Ga., Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon, New York City, for appellee National Screen Service Corp.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment which was entered against plaintiff-appellant in a private antitrust action seeking treble damages for an alleged violation of the Sherman Act. We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court committed no error.1

The judgment is affirmed, D.C.,35 F.R.D. 558.Page 321
  1. See Fed.R.Civ.P.56(e); Dressler v. M.V. Sandpiper,331 F.2d 130(2 Cir. 1964). ↩