Case ID: f2d_186/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TIVOLI REALTY, Inc. v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al., Interstate Circuit, Inc., and Texas Consolidated Theatres, Inc., appellants. TIVOLI REALTY, Inc. v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al. Paramount Pictures, Inc.; Paramount Film Distributing Corp.; Loew’s Inc.; Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corp.; RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.; Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp.; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.; Columbia Pictures Corp.; United Artists Corp.; Universal Pictures, Inc., and Universal Film Exchange, Inc., appellants. I. B. ADELMAN v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al. Interstate Circuit, Inc. and Texas Consolidated Theatres, Inc., appellants. I. B. ADELMAN v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al. Paramount Pictures, Inc.; Paramount Film Distributing Corp.; Lowe’s Inc.; Radlo-Kelth-Orpheum Corp.; RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.; Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp.; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.; Columbia Pictures Corp.; United Artists Corp.; Universal Pictures, Inc., and Universal Film Exchange, Inc., appellants.
    Nos. 10191 — 10194.
    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
    Argued Oct. 3, 1950.
    Decided Dec. 6, 1950.
    Robert E. Sher, Washington, D. C., Roy McDonald, New York City (Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Del., Hastings, Stockly, Walz & Wise, Wilmington, Del., Morris Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, Del., Southerland, Berl & Potter, Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for appellants.
    Thurman Arnold, Washington, D. C. (Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington Del., Arnold, Fortas & Porter, Washington, D. C., Thompson, Meek & Goldberg, Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellees.
    Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The order complained of is not appeal-able under Section 1291 or Section 1292, Title 28 United States Code Annotated. See the opinion filed concurrently with this in Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Rodney, 186 F.2d 111, petitions for mandamus.

The appeals will be dismissed.