PONDERS TAFT-HARTLEY WAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

m '. '. JACKSON PARK DECREE UPHELD I BY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL Drastic Changes May Come In Whole Chicago Setup Of Selling, Playing CHICAGO—The sweeping decree in the Jackson Park Theatre antitmst case, which threatens to upset the entire distribution and clearance system in Chicago, was upheld In virtually every essential by the circuit court of appeals in a decision handed down early in the week. Among tlie most revolutionary aspects of the decree, as it concerns the majors, is it.s limitations on the length of first runs in Loop theatres. The decree specifically forbids the defendants from keeping their pictures for more than a two-week run in their own theatres, or for more than one week in a later run. FORCES QUICK RUNOFF Should a Loop theatre hold over a picture for a longer period, the film must then be released to other theatres. Other provisions of the decree are: *1) It eliminates the establishment of "dead or waiting time" between first runs and the next run by theatres operated by the defendants. This will eliminate waiting time between Loop and neighborhood showings. 12 1 It prohibits the practice of "conditioning of film licenses upon the maintenance of minimum admission prices," in other words, the practice of setting the price before a picture is released to a theatre. i3) Use of double features, "when used to further the conspiracy," are illegal. In other words, the defendants can properly be enjoined by' injunction from using double features where they are used for the purpose of preventing the Jackson Park Theatre from obtaining pictures before the defendants have channeled them "through the conspiratorial system." What the court did hold, however, was that the decree could not be used to give the Jack.son Park Theatre "a favored fixed position in the scheme which they (the plaintiffs) have .sought to destroy." DENIES SINGLE PROVISION The decree had enjoined the majors and other defendants from preventing the Jackson Park Theatre "from buying a run of pictures one week in advance of the Maryland Tlicatre la B&K house i at a rental not to exceed a fair and reasonable film rental." This, the court held, "you cannot do by injunction." The decree, it held, may be used "to destroy the conspiracy root," but it cannot be used to redress the economic balance between the plaintiffs and the defendants. "No one has a vested right In playing time," the court declared. Thomas McConnell, attorney for the Jack- .son Park Interests, had contended that the Maryland Tlicntre was given preferential treatment In films. This general preml.se was the basis on which the original suit was brought and on which damages of $360,000 Text of the Court's Decision Following is the complete text of the decision handed doicn by the Unitei i States Circuit Court of Appeals in the Jackson Park case. The opinion was writ- < ten by Judge Sherman Minton, with Justice Will M. Sparks and J. Earl Major [ concurring. This is the second appeal in this cause. On the first appeal, 150 F. 2d 877. we found that the conspiracy alleged in the complaint was established by the evidence and was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, but we reversed on the question of damages. On certiorari to the supreme court, that court affirmed the finding of a conspiracy buc reversed us on the question of damages, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently and correctly proved the measure of damages, and affirmed a judgment for $360,000 damages, 327 U.S. 251. 66 S. Ct. 574, 90 L. Ed. 579. The facts are set forth in these two opinions. After the supreme court had reversed this court and the cause had been remanded to the trial court, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging continuation of the conspiracy. In it they prayed for equitable relief and also additional damages for the period subsequent to the filing of the original complaint. The claim for additional damages is still pending in the district court. The plaintiffs' .supplemental complaint alleged that the defendants were estopped by the verdict in the first damage trial from contesting any of the allegations of the original complaint or any of the allegations advanced by the plaintiff during the trial of said issues. The defendants answered denying estoppel, and the estoppel issue joined was set separately for trial. Full Record in Evidence At the hearing the plaintiffs put in evidence, for the limited purpose of showing what had transpired during the trial and appeal of the damage issue, the complete printed record and the brief filed, and also the opinions handed down in this court and in the supreme court. This was the only evidence then heard by the trial judge sitting as a chancellor and it was expres.sly understood that the printed record, although it contained the testimony heard by the jury generally, was received only to permit the trial judge to determine to what extent inquiry by him into the merits was precluded by estoppel. The trial judge held with the plaintiffs that every allegation of the plaintiffs' original complaint had been decided finally and conclusively in the plaintiffs" favor by the jury's verdict. In addition, the trial judge made a number of additional findings of fact which set forth the plaintiffs' operated by the dcfcndanl.s, and finally in were awarded. The U.S. supreme court upheld this verdict last year. McConnell then went before Judge Michael L. Igoe and asked for a decree carrying out the provisions of previous findings. This Judge Igoe did in his now revolutionary injunction. As the original suit asked for damages only for the period prior to 1940, a supplemental suit for the period from 1940 to 1946—asking $600,000 damages— Is now pend- conception of what they had proved tt It trial. The district court thereupon a permanent injunction as prayed for bf fiJ plaintiffs. From this judgment, the de" ants have appealed. By this appeal the defendants challeri the trial court's ruling that estoppel by «. diet extends to every issue involved In pf litigation between the parties. They cont« that as a matter of law estoppel by vtti, extends only to matters expressly and neo sarily decided in the prior litigation, w. the result, as contended by the defendu that the court's decree in its present fM;, must fall. The defendants request this cm to modify the findings by confining sg findings to the issues upon which the (' fendants actually are estopped, and to en a decree on the findings as so modified. A Resume of the Case ' The original complaint stated but O' cause of action which, if proved, entitled t plaintiffs to two kinds of relief, name damages and an injunction. The same Jud that presided in the trial of the dama action heard the plaintiffs' application for injunction. One phase of this complain was submitted to the jury which returned i verdict for damages, upon which judgme was entered and finally affirmed by the su preme court. The other phase was tried the presiding judge as a chancellor, w has stated his findings of fact and cond sions of law and upon them entered the d cree from which the defendants have a pealed. The defendants were found guilty of o conspiracy in restraint of trade in \1olati. of the Sherman act, 15 U.S. C. A. Sec. I. jury so found, and the district court, tl The t. court, and the supreme court upheld finding of conspiracy. The conspiracy operated that the defendants might hold picture in the Loop for the benefit of th< theatres there, at minimum admission prir to be charged, for such playing time as :1 defendants might agree upon. When tl picture was through playing in the Loc there was a clearance time of three wee before it could play elsewhere in Chlcaa The picture was then channeled in a sen of release weeks through theatres owned ar (Continued on next page) ing. This week's decision of the circuit court is creating considerable excitement among exhibitors, both within the defendant group •!( independents. Drastic changes will come k the whole scheme of selling and playlDf W pictures in the Chicago area if the provllioii of the decree in their entirety are carrw out. It is expected that the defendants wl' ask the U.S. supreme court for a review 'i the appeal. Defendants In the case are Paramount P* tures. Inc.: Balaban & Katz Corp.: Wsrnii Bros. Circuit Management Corp.; 'Vltagnp' Inc.: 20th Century-Fox Film Corp.: Loer; RKO Radio Pictures and Warner BW Inc.: Theatre Corp. 10 BOXOFTICE ;: June 28, l*
' mre, ; to ; iidmission , the , on findings T)xt of the Court's Decision (Cont.) j^ , -nili week after the Loop run, the plainws owned and operated the Maryland Theatre, HII^wtre permitted to buy the picture in compel the as findings the they evidence requested. rsi weelc of general release. The court, with this situation in mind, tt>e Iiother words, whatever income that picturfwn.s shaped its decree in a fashion to meet it. In capable of producing was squeezed this regard the court had a wide discretion. out f It for the benefit of the defendants, (United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. whoporated under the unlawful conspiracy, et al., 323 U.S. 173, 185, 65 S. Ct. 254, 89 L. h.'fi? the defendants permitted the plain- Ed. 160: Ethyl Gasoline Corporation et al v. buy; and notwithstanding the fact United States, 309 U. S. 436, 461, 60 S. Ct. plaintiffs' theatre had a superior 618, 84 L. Ed. 852: United States v. Bausch and equipment and was more ati,ve & Lomb Optical Co., 321 US. 707, 725, 728, than the Maryland Theatre oper- 64 S. Ct. 805, 88 L. Ed. 1024.) «U'ib.\ one of the defendants, the defendmtwciuld not sell the plaintiffs a picture the acts committed under the conspiracy The decree was properly drawn to meet Uiit the Maryland Theatre had played it. and threatened. The court was authorized to Thidiiendants were able to set the run, impose such further restraints as would prevent an evasion. All doubts were resolved system of release, and the miniprices for every theatre in in favor of the plaintiffs. (Local 167 v. United ^....rhicago district. No theatre could opera successfully in the Chicago district States, supra, at 293, 299.) The defendant Balaban & Katz Corporation, although it appealed from the whole wit )u: the pictures which the defendants rolled. decree and not part of it as it might have Cospiracy Is Outlawed done under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, objects here specifically to certain portions t der this oppressive conspiracy, the de - of the decree. This defendant made tn'.s operated. ThLs conspiracy has been no motion to modify the decree in the respects ; wed unequivocally. The defendants to which it now objects. Consequent- ha' lixst a lawsuit. By their unlawful congpi cy. they have been found to have dam- on the contentions urged here for the first ly, the district court had no chance to rule ag( the plaintiffs in a very substantial sum. time. However, we have considered these In ne case where the government had succesully contentions, and we find no merit in them prosecuted certain defendants be- except as hereinafter mentioned for a jury for a violation of the Sherman Ac the supreme court said on an application UphoW Twin-Bill Ban form injunction: "The defendants in this As to the double featuring, we found in suiwlio had been there convicted could not the first appeal of this case that while the recire proof of what had been duly adju(ed between the parties." (Local 167 v. illegal, when used to further the conspiracy double featuring in and of itself was not Ured States, 291 U.S. 293, 298, 54 S. Ct. 396, which we found to be illegal, the double featuring became tainted with illegality. (Bige- 78 . Ed. 804.1 'le trial court was not bound to hear any low v. RKO Radio Pictures, 150 F. 2d 877, me? evidence than the jury had heard and 885.) Therefore, the district court may very upi which evidence the jury had found the properly enjoin the use of double features ex ence of the conspiracy and the very where used with the intent and purpose and sti taiitial to damages the plaintiffs. Upon where such use has the effect of preventing th same evidence, the district court could the plaintiffs from obtaining pictures before ha- based its decree after making proper the defendants have channeled them through fi:inss. If the district court took a narro the conspiratorial system. It is only the use view of that evidence, we would not feel of the double featuring within the bounds bold to do likewise, because the entire rec- of the conspiracy that was enjoined. This "r Is before us. The record evidence if con- is proper. :ed in its entirety supports the findings. This defendant also complains that the decree should not enjoin the inly by looking through this restricted defendants from • le or view of the evidence that the find- a first run In the Loop in excess of two weeks 1.1 are deemed insufficient. We decline and a subsequent run in excess of one week th invitation to play hide and seek in the without any waiting time, because their competitors are not so limited. The short and re rd in an effort to evaluate the district ts findings, looking only through the complete answer to this contention is that 'e of estoppel by verdict. The district their competitors are not in the conspiracy. : had the entire record before it. If it The provisions of the decree complained of -e to take a narrow view of the evidence, were reasonably adapted to breaking up the IF" not bound to follow it where a con- conspiracy, a part of which was the method ; a ion of all the evidence will support its of release, and such provisions were therefore iiri:;s without question. properly entered. "h Question of Guilt" With reference to subparagraph (e) of Paragraph V of the decree, we agree with .'e put to one side the refinements of the defendants that there is no finding to iiunent, orally and in the briefs, as to the support it. The subparagraph reads as follows: c! inction between estoppel by verdict and e )pi'el by judgment, and look to all the "(ei Preventing plaintiffs from buying e'lei ce in this case that was submitted to M trial court on a run of pictures one week in advance of the first hearing, in order rtfermine the Maryland Theatre at a rental not to whether there is evidence to ail exceed a fair and reasonable film rental;" the findings that the court actually "de When so considered, there is an Thus the plaintiffs seek by the decree a ami ance of evidence to support the district favored fixed position in the scheme which ••rt of fact. There can be no they have sought to destroy, and this on the fr.=;t in of the defendants' guilt in maint.iii ground not of the illegal conspiracy but on ? the unlawful conspiracy alleged in the the ground that the court found they were cnp:aint. The evidence in the record sup- at an economic disadvantage with the defendant Balaban & Katz Corporation, who Pts the trial court's findings, and there ro Jurisdiction Taken In Antitrust Case WASHINGTON- -Acting at the closing session of the pre.sent term the supreme court this week assumed jurisdiction in the New York industry antitrust ca.se. The court agreed to review the decree issued last December 31 by a three-judge federal district court in New 'Vork. While no definite date has been set arguments In the case are scheduled to be heard during the next term of the court which begins on October 6. As.sociate Justice Robert H. Jackson, former attorney general, has withdrawn from the case so the issues will be heard by an eight-judge tribunal. The high court postponed consideration of a motion of the American Theatres Ass'n, Confederacy of Southern Ass'ns and Southern California Theatre Owners to intervene in the case. The court will consider this motion as well as the question of its jurisdiction in regard to the associations pleading for the right to intervene until the case in chief is heard on its merits. Thurman Arnold of counsel for ATA, told BOXOFFICE "we have everything we want. We will argue our case at the same time as the major producers' case is argued." He pointed out that the supreme court had dismissed a motion of the major distributorexhibitor defendants to bar intervention by ATA and associated groups. Attorneys for Loew's, 20th-Fox, RKO, Paramount and Warner Bros., raised the point that the ATA group was without legal right to intervene and that such action was allowable only with the consent of the attorney general. The ATA group in briefs .seeking intervention cited the St. Louis Terminal decision in which a similar right to intervene was upheld by the courts. The briefs further questioned the power of the district court to cut off the legal right of the exhibitor groups to intervene. Other defendants in the case include Columbia, United Artists and Universal-International. because of this defendant's bargaining power as the operator of a chain of theatres. The decree may very properly be used to destroy the conspiracy root, branch, and all its evil fruits, but it may not be used to redress the economic balance between the plaintiffs and the said defendant without a finding that that difference was related directly to the conspiracy. It has been the plaintiffs' contention, as we understand it, that no one has a vested right in a playing position. In this we agree with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have a right to compete for any playing position, but they have no right to be awarded and protected by decree in any certain position. If the plaintiffs find themselves at a disadvantage because the defendants are economically stronger inasmuch as they are a chain with large bargaining power, the plaintiffs may not, without any finding to support it, obtain a decree vesting them and protecting them in a privileged position ahead of the Maryland Theatre. This does not appear to us as using the decree to destroy the conspiracy, but rather to preserve the evil in the interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been awarded a substantial judgment for damages. That should take care of the past injury. The decree which the court has entered, we think, rather effectively destroys the conspiracy and therefore leaves the future open to the plaintiffs to compete for the pictures at a reasonable price. This subparagraph of the decree is unsupported by any finding, and It will be eliminated. With this modification, we find no basis for objection to the decree, and, as modified, the decree is affirmed. I BXOFFICE :: June 28. 1947 11
Page 1 and 2: INDUSTRY PONDERS EFFECT OF THE TAFT
Page 3 and 4: I I He's hotter than a i^S^ firecra
Page 5 and 6: -,*' - " "t "a 1 » ' ^ w -L « J 1
Page 7 and 8: lluJi.Hl0H 'ulwu (Z^y^ttdtHHU Ped4e
Page 9: : flpiure, ' ' • was i • with ^
Page 13 and 14: (HORNER BROS., ^*- -"'""'"« fl'"'
Page 15 and 16: l,L I )eto Wilson P.OODS STRIKE AT
Page 17 and 18: I "Tight adventure melodrama with P
Page 19 and 20: m. THE SELZNICK RELEASING ORGANIZAT
Page 21 and 22: . point W. D I)cal Censors Urged 1)
Page 23 and 24: i; ridf 1 if hat Sipi'eme Court Rul
Page 25 and 26: NORMANDIE . :j^;//.H Star TRADE SHO
Page 27 and 28: : a:.d . amending L New • bt Tvo
Page 29 and 30: i I ••• • I In Hew York's E
Page 31 and 32: — I Continued I ontlnued from pag
Page 33 and 34: I One ' I — Cl^STER FRIEDMAN EDIT
Page 35 and 36: I hchmg , ?estem : the Sl)r3 Serves
Page 37 and 38: ?Oth HAS THE ANSWER! C^l AT RADIO C
Page 39 and 40: Kie 'Johnny 'Clock' ByFhone in Hote
Page 41 and 42: . . . Stay " s TREASUBE IT! Don't d
Page 43 and 44: 1 Ids I jply xhibitor Henry Reeve o
Page 45 and 46: Lachman Re-Elected Head of N.J. All
Page 47 and 48: ' and . . James . . Maurice . . M.
Page 49 and 50: . . Lois . . Jane . . Frances . . E
Page 51 and 52: I I I their I conditions. , hour, ,
Page 53 and 54: i Ijrilish !o Tax Films \)n Earning
Page 55 and 56: f What every bride shouldn't know:
Page 57 and 58: EWS AND VIEWS THE PRODUCTION CEMTER
Page 59 and 60: \ Casey, - 'NAKED " 'HIGH estimonia
Page 61 and 62:
LOS ANGELES AT ITS BEST WHERE IN AM
Page 63 and 64:
I , deal . . Dave . . Emma . . Barn
Page 65 and 66:
' I the . . Gladys . , E. . . Georg
Page 67 and 68:
, Fire I Louis ' 1 nt - . . . Spenc
Page 69 and 70:
I which ^ht. Louis Bus strike Flood
Page 71 and 72:
. screened . . Florence . . Laura .
Page 73 and 74:
i gat ' I I : C.rand i week. I nost
Page 75 and 76:
, From the BOXOFFICE FILES • •
Page 77 and 78:
I trict i and ! motor-equipped 1 an
Page 79 and 80:
AHHOUHcma the appointmenf of as man
Page 81 and 82:
. . Ben . . The . . Herb ]aehrs Wil
Page 83 and 84:
[ jRosanek. ' Trom I Local . . Dona
Page 85 and 86:
' I ^-9 : Present OHIO SLASHES JOBL
Page 87 and 88:
I I 1 In * Exhibitor Uses Plane; ^
Page 89 and 90:
' While I . . The . . Dorothy . . E
Page 91 and 92:
. . United ' DETROIT Tnder the marq
Page 93 and 94:
I would I Wat«rbury, 1 Middle.'iex
Page 95 and 96:
. . Seen Yamins Links Houses IVith
Page 97 and 98:
i The E.C| aenu 0, ! list iHSlljI i
Page 99 and 100:
' Manager ''Samuel Pinansky of M&P
Page 101 and 102:
I .sales 1 his . jects — Celebrit
Page 103 and 104:
Clear, Sharp, True Amplification PD
Page 105 and 106:
A STAR PERFORMER BETTER LOOKING HIG
Page 107 and 108:
, Gibson, . . Kenney . . Variety "S
Page 109 and 110:
i 'stage ( I i The HOUSTON T B. t'o
Page 111 and 112:
i Theatre Sponsors Midget Auto Race
Page 113 and 114:
1 was ,-i mnd, . including , nd . f
Page 115 and 116:
; lit . . Irene . . Jimmy . . Filmr
Page 117 and 118:
j I . . . Morris . . Al . . Jackie
Page 119 and 120:
. . . Fred Eddie . . Ida . . Mrs. .
Page 121 and 122:
Walker Experiments Bill Demarest Cl
Page 123 and 124:
. . . The ' ' . . Aurel . . The ST.
Page 125 and 126:
OFFICE BAROMETER • EXHIBITOR HAS
Page 127 and 128:
: ways .' burger. BOXOFFICE BookinG
Page 129 and 130:
CHECK RUNNING TIME WITH LOCAL EXCHA
Page 131 and 132:
: ARY 18 il— l'O-T80 Draaa i ITY
Page 133 and 134:
ROYOFFTrF nnr,Hr,(-:i,i/4o .Tlinp 9
Page 135 and 136:
i \terpretalivs analysis oi opinion
Page 137 and 138:
I (19) , No. , No. . No. — 20th C
Page 139 and 140:
Opinions on Current Productions; Ex
Page 141 and 142:
I Powers Industry's Market for Purc
show all

PONDERS TAFT-HARTLEY WAL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?