Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 8, 1926No. 218PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The practice pursued below has been criticized at bar, but the matter has been sufficiently treated in Green v. Adams Co., 247 F. 485, 159 C. C. A. 539, and Gordon v. Turco-Halvah Co., 247 F. 487, 159 C. C. A. 541. Supplemental injunctions are sometimes useful remedies. We note Minerals, etc., v. Miami Co. (C. C. A.) 269 F. 265, and remain of opinion that at times injunction is preferable to contempt proceedings.

In a sense they are alike, for both reach only matters fairly covered by the decision already made. But in another sense injunction gives…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  2. Gordon v. Turco-Halvah Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
  3. Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1921
  4. Charles Green Co. v. Henry P. Adams Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
  5. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Miami Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hartford-Empire Co. v. OBEARNESTER GLASS CO.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  2. Larkin Packer Co. v. Hinderliter Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
  3. Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., a Corporation v. Harry A. Pursche, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
  4. Singer Mfg. Co. v. SeinfeldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  5. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API