Legal Opinion
Inverness Corporation v. Whitehall Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 21, 1987No. 1092, Docket 87-7209PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Per curiam
This case once again demonstrates the need for the district courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit this court to review their decisions on appeal.
Defendants Whitehall Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation (collectively “Whitehall”) appeal from an order, entered in the Southern District by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on March 3, 1987, preliminarily enjoining them from selling or distributing a new roll-on hair-remover in a particular container. Whitehall primarily claims that because the district court “failed to make the necessary findings to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- United States v. FornessCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Stormy Clime Ltd. v. Progroup, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- John Alexander and Annie Alexander v. Nash-Kelvinator CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Allied Marketing Group, Inc., D/B/A Sweepstakes Clearinghouse v. Cdl Marketing, Inc., Carl D. Landon and S & H Marketing Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Martens v. ThomannCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Mentor Insurance Company v. BrannkasseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- TEC Engineering Corp. v. Budget Molders Supply, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.