Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Loew's, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States; and United States v. Loew's, Inc. et al., 1950 — 339 U.S. 974 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Loew's, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States; and United States v. Loew's, Inc. et al.
339 U.S. 974·Supreme Court of the United States·1950
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 844. No. 845. No. 846. No. 847.
Loew’s, Inc. v. United States; Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al. v. United States; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al. v. United States; and United States v. Loew’s, Inc. et al.
John W. Davis, J. Robert Rubin and S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr. for appellant in No. 844.
Joseph M. Proskauer and Robert W. Perkins for Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. et al., appellants in No. 845.
James F. Byrnes, Otto E. Koegel, John F. Caskey and Frederick W. R. Pride for Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. et al., appellants in No. 846.
Solicitor General Perlman for the United States, appellant in No. 847.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the cases set down for argument. Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.