Legal Opinion
Pangborn Corp. v. American Foundry Equipment Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided August 12, 1946No. Nos. 8991, 9004, 9025PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
The three appeals at bar are in reality but two. The first, that at our No. 8991 (Civil Action No. 193 in the court below), is that of Pangborn Corporation (Pang-born) from an order of the court below denying Pangborn or anyone claiming under it the right to prosecute any proceeding based on Rosenberger and Keefer Patent No. 2,352,588, against The American Foundry Equipment Company (American). The two other appeals, respectively at our Nos. 9004 and 9025, were taken by William F. Hall, Esquire, a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice to…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Dwinell-Wright Co. v. National Fruit Product Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
- Pangborn Corp. v. American Foundry Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948