Loew's Inc. v. McGuire

D.C. Circuit

Loew's Inc. v. McGuire

205 F.2d 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1953

DocketMisc. No. 360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 F.2d 719 (Loew's Inc. v. McGuire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loew's Inc. v. McGuire, 205 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a “petition for writ of mandamus.” Petitioners, defendants in an antitrust suit, moved in the District Court for a change of venue under Title 28, § 1404(a) of the United States Code, 62 Stat. 937, which provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The respondent is the District Judge who denied petitioners’ motion.

The present petition asks that the respondent be directed to consider the con[720]*720venience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice. He. says he has done so. We take this to be conclusive. Petitioners would not be prejudiced even if he had failed, as they contend, to consider the matters in question at the time he denied the motion, since, his consideration of them now leads him to the conclusion he reached then.

Petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a “petition for writ of mandamus.” Petitioners, defendants in an antitrust suit, moved in the District Court for a change of venue under Title 28, § 1404(a) of the United States Code, 62 Stat. 937, which provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The respondent is the District Judge who denied petitioners’ motion.

The present petition asks that the respondent be directed to consider the con[720]*720venience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice. He. says he has done so. We take this to be conclusive. Petitioners would not be prejudiced even if he had failed, as they contend, to consider the matters in question at the time he denied the motion, since, his consideration of them now leads him to the conclusion he reached then.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loews-inc-v-mcguire-cadc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack