COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. LOEW'S INC., 356 U.S. 43 (1958)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. LOEW'S INC., 356 U.S. 43
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/356/43/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/356/43/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. LOEW'S INC., 356 U.S. 43 (1958)
356 U.S. 43 COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL. v. LOEW'S INC. ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 90.
Argued January 29, 1958.
Decided March 17, 1958.
239 F.2d 532, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
W. B. Carman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Homer I. Mitchell, Warren M. Christopher, Loyd Wright and Dudley K. Wright.
Herman F. Selvin argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Joseph P. Loeb.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
U.S. Supreme Court
FORMAN v. APFEL, 356 U.S. 43 (1958)
356 U.S. 43 FORMAN ET UX. v. APFEL, LIQUIDATING RECEIVER, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT.
No. 726.
Decided March 17, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 390 Pa. 161, 134 A. 2d 662.
Thomson F. Edwards for appellants.
A. D. Caesar and Nathan I. Miller for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.