Legal Opinion

LaChapelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 11, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

These are actions of contract. They have been reported by the trial judge for determination of questions raised by denial of motions of the defendant to dismiss on the ground that the cases arose under the patent laws of the United States and were within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of the United States.

It is alleged in all counts in both actions that the contracts in suit were made in October, 1905, by the plaintiff with a predecessor of the defendant to whose rights, business and assets the defendant has succeeded, and whose obligations and liabilities to the plaintiff the defendant…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  5. Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Eno v. Prime Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. George C. Miller & Co. v. BeagenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  3. Lee v. Mt. Ivy Press, L.P.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
  4. Respro, Inc. v. Worcester Backing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  5. L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. FallsMichigan Supreme Court · 1940

2 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