Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Distributing
346 U.S. 537 (1954)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Distributing, 346 U.S. 537 (1953)

Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.

No.19

Argued November 30, December 1, 1953

Decided January 4, 1954

346 U.S. 537

Syllabus

Petitioner brought suit in a Federal District Court under the Clayton Act for treble damages and an injunction, alleging that respondent motion picture producers and distributors had violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to restrict "first-run" pictures to downtown Baltimore theaters, thus confining petitioner's suburban theater to subsequent runs and unreasonable "clearances." There was no direct evidence of illegal agreement between respondents, and the jury returned a general verdict for respondents.

Held:

1. Upon the evidence in the case, the trial judge properly refused to direct a verdict for petitioner and properly submitted the issue of conspiracy to the jury. Pp. 346 U. S. 539-542.

(a) Proof of parallel business behavior does not conclusively establish agreement, nor does such behavior itself constitute a Sherman Act offense. Pp. 346 U. S. 540-541.

(b) The decrees in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,334 U. S. 131, alone or in conjunction with petitioner's other proof, formed no basis for a directed verdict for petitioner, since those decrees were only prima facie evidence of a conspiracy covering the area and existing during the period there involved, and since petitioner's allegation of conspiracy was factually contested. Pp. 346 U. S. 541-542.

2. In his instructions to the jury, the trial judge did not fail to give sufficient weight to the decrees in the Paramount case. Pp. 346 U. S. 542-544.

(a) The instructions in this connection were not so superficial and so limited as to deprive petitioner of any of the benefits conferred upon it by § 5 of the Clayton Act. Pp. 346 U. S. 542-543.

(b) It was not error for the trial judge to instruct the jury, in effect, that the Paramount decrees alone could not support a recovery by petitioner, and that additional evidence was required to relate the prior Paramount conspiracy to Baltimore and to the claimed damage period. Pp. 346 U. S. 543-544.

201 F.2d 306 affirmed.

Page 346 U. S. 538

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.