Legal Opinion
Angelus Sanitary Can Mach. Co. v. Wilson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 3, 1925No. 4420PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Machines for capping and compressing can heads and double-seaming' without the use of solder were old in the art when Wilson and Sumner entered the field. Two steps mark the operation: First, that by which the flange on a cap is bent partly around the can and body flange so as initially to interlock the flanges; and, second, that by which the interlocked flanges are rolled or curled to complete the seam. This litigation pertains principally to the first operation. Some of the earlier devices had two seaming operations and encircling seamirig m§ans, but it…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- MacHine Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- J. L. Owens Co. v. Twin City Separator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Lourie Implement Co. v. LenhartCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Johns-Manville Corporation v. National Tank Seal Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
- Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. RuthCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Baldwin Rubber Co. v. Paine & Williams Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
- Matthews v. Allen Matthews v. Koolvent Metal Awning Co. Of Winston-Salem, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- Butler v. Burgh Plow Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.