Legal Opinion
Folberth Auto Specialty v. Trico Products Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided April 27, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
Two motions by plaintiff to strike out averments in its bill, and also to strike out paragraphs of the amended answer.
1. In view of the fact that an order has been entered, vacating and setting aside the prior decisions in the Mayo-Skinner Manufacturing Company and Apex Manufacturing Company eases sustaining the patent, I would incline towards permitting the elimination of those adjudications as contained in paragraphs 9 and 10. The plaintiff no longer relies on the effect of prior adjudications, and the answer alleging unclean hands of plaintiff in consequence of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. H. G. Kroncke Hardware Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916
- Gerosa v. Apco Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1924
- Onondaga Indian Wigwam Co. v. Ka-Noo-No Indian Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1910
3Cited by2 opinions
- McCabe & Schoenholz, Inc. v. Frank J. Quigan, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
- Universal Radiator Products Co. v. Craftsman Radiator Enclosure Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1932