Partmar Corporation v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp.
347 U.S. 89 · Decided February 8, 1954 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Partmar Corporation v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp. was decided on February 8, 1954 by a vote of 5–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Stanley F. Reed wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Antitrust” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 347 U.S. 89 · 74 S. Ct. 414 · 98 L. Ed. 2d 532 · 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2749
- Docket number
- 17
- Decided
- February 8, 1954
- Argued
- October 13, 1953
- Court era
- Warren Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–2
- Majority opinion
- Stanley F. Reed
- Opinion assigned by
- Stanley F. Reed
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Antitrust
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Estoppel
- Type of law
- Other
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Dissent | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Majority | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Earl Warren | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Did not participate: Robert H. Jackson, Tom C. Clark.
Full case caption
Partmar Corporation et al. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp. et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1953-040, docket 1953-040-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Antitrust”
- Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
- Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.
- United States v. Borden Company
- United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States.
- Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Federal Trade Commission
- Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
Cases on the same legal provision: Estoppel
- United States v. International Building Co.
- Callanan Road Improvement Co. v. United States
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen
- Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.
- Macgregor v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.Altered precedent
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Voris v. Eikel
- Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.
- Avondale Marine Ways, Inc. v. Henderson
- Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn
- Wilko v. Swan
- General Protective Committee for the Holders of Option Warrants of the United Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error