Delta Theatres v. Paramount Pictures
Decision Date | 27 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 17149.,17149. |
Citation | 259 F.2d 563 |
Parties | DELTA THEATRES, Inc., Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Murray F. Cleveland, C. Ellis Henican, Henican, James & Cleveland, New Orleans, La., for Delta Theatres, Inc., appellant.
Gibbons Burke, Ashton Phelps, Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke & Hopkins, New Orleans, La., for appellees. E. C. Raftery, New York City, Harry McCall, New Orleans, La., E. Compton Timberlake, Marvin Ginsky, New York City, of counsel.
Jackson, Smith, Mayer & Kennedy, J. H. Jackson, Smallenberger, Eatman & Morgan, LeRoy Smallenberger, Shreveport, La., amici curiae.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.
The question upon which this case will be decided is whether or not the order entered by the court below restricting recoverable damages to those suffered within one year of the filing of the complaint is a final decision so as to be appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 and § 1292. We raised the question during the oral argument, and we think the order was not one from which the statutes permit an appeal. The opinion of the court below is published1 and we quote from that decision at page 649, this statement of what the case is about:
The published opinion also calls attention to the fact that the conspiracy is alleged to have continued since 1947, to have resulted in losses to appellant in box office receipts, as well as in prestige, standing and good will, and that the conspiracy has continued from the time Delta's theater opened with the single purpose of eliminating it from competition. The opinion also notes that the losses claimed could be attributed equally well to Delta's inability to exhibit a particular film, or to offer any film of prime quality on a particular night, or to a general lack of confidence in Delta's offerings due to the inferior films it had been forced to exhibit in the past.
From these references to the complaint it is manifest that it presents only one claim or cause of action, and that the ruling of the court below relates to recoverable items of damage alone. The case is, therefore, ruled by our decision in King v. California Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 193, petition for rehearing denied 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 413. We held that the complaint there embraced one single claim for damages to real estate and appellant's right of possession and enjoyment thereof, and we dismissed the appeal because the summary judgment granted by the court did nothing more than limit the right of recovery to certain years and to certain items of damage. What we said there applies equally here:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laitram Corporation v. Deepsouth Packing Company
...1958, 162 F.Supp. 602, 605-606; Delta Theaters v. Paramount Pictures, E.D.La., 1958, 158 F.Supp. 644, 647-649, appeal dismissed, 5 Cir., 259 F.2d 563, on the ground that the decision of the district court was not a final decision and thus not appealable. 23 This approach appears to have ori......
-
Loew's, Inc. v. Don George, Inc., 43617
...rule, and therefore the one-year limit applies.' Delta Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., D.C.E.D.La., 158 F.Supp. 644, 646; 5 Cir., 259 F.2d 563. See, also, Streiffer v. Seafarers Sea Chest Corporation, D.C., 162 F.Supp. 602. Cf. Don George, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., D.C.,......
-
Moffat v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York
...his trial and appellate expenses. See Delta Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., E.D.La.1958, 158 F.Supp. 644, appeal dismissed, 259 F.2d 563. Also it would lead to a multiplicity of suits, long in disfavor in law. There would be a suit for costs and expenses and then, after judgment......
-
Gaetzi v. Carling Brewing Company
...F.2d 714, 59 A.L.R.2d 159 (7th Cir. 1956); Delta Theaters v. Paramount Pictures, 158 F. Supp. 644 (E.D.La.1958), appeal dismissed, 259 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1958). The cases uniformly hold that a cause of action for damages under the antitrust laws does not arise with the formation of an illeg......