Legal Opinion

Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 9, 1960No. 325, Docket 26061PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment below on Judge Dimock’s thorough analysis of the facts and his discussion of the relevant principles and authorities set forth in his opinion reported at 177 F.Supp. 291 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959). An examination of the exhibits fully supports Judge Dimock’s finding that all of the features of the plaintiff’s aluminum casement window which the defendant is alleged to have appro*338priated, were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff’s window which was available on the open market.

Affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Speciner v. Reynolds Metals CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hudson Hotels Corporation v. Choice Hotels International, and Robert HazardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  2. LinkCo, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
  3. Reed Construction Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
  4. I. Jonas Speciner, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abc Steel Equipment Co., Inc. v. Reynolds Metals CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960