Legal Opinion

Arthur Kahn Co. v. Switzer Bros.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided September 7, 1951No. Civ. Nos. 28165, 28124PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, Chief Judge.

Memorandum on Motion for Temporary Injunction.

The parties to this litigation appeared in the Court’s chambers and informally presented the questions precipitated by the motion for temporary injunction of the so-called “Texas” suit.

Due to the necessity of prompt disposition of the questions presented, the Court will not be able to state its reaction from the facts, presentations and arguments of counsel for the parties except briefly as follows:

It is clear, and the parties seem to agree, that a court which first acquires jurisdiction of an equitable action, particularly a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cofax Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1947

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Arthur Kahn Co. v. Switzer Bros.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951
  2. Sortex Co. of North America, Inc. v. Mandrel Industries, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1964
  3. Gordon Johnson Co. v. HuntDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API