1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 254 F.Supp.
  5. 254 F.Supp. 855 (1966)
 

STARVIEW OUTDOOR THEATRE v. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIB. CORP.

No. 63 C 1351.

254 F.Supp. 855 (1966)

STARVIEW OUTDOOR THEATRE, INC., and Diamond Realty, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp., Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., Columbia Pictures Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Buena Vista Distribution Co., Inc., American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., Balaban & Katz Corporation, and Publix Great States Theatres, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

February 9, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James G. Culbertson, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann & Hoban, Chicago, Ill., Robert D. Raven, Morrison, Foerster, Holloway, Clinton & Clark, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Muller Davis, Samuel Block, Raymond Mayer, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for Paramount Film Distributing Corp., American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., Publix Great States Theatres, Inc., and Balaban and Katz Corp.

Miles G. Seeley, Richard F. Hart, James W. Gladden, Jr., George W. Hamman, Mayer, Friedlich, Spiess, Tierney, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., for Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp., Columbia Pictures Corp., United Artists Corp., Universal Film Exchanges, Inc.

Robert W. Bergstrom, Charles O. Brizius, Ronald W. Olson, Bergstrom, Brizius & Olson, Chicago, Ill., for Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Tom A. Reynolds, Sr., Edward L. Foote, Winston, Strawn, Smith & Patterson, Chicago, Ill., A. Vernon Carnahan, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, for Buena Vista Distribution Co., Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PARSONS, District Judge.

I have before me a motion adopted by all defendants for the entry of a pretrial order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting the issue of damages at trial to those alleged to have occurred after July 29, 1959. In the alternative, these same defendants renew their motion under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for partial summary judgment against the plaintiffs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases