Legal Opinion

Lathrop v. Rice & Adams Corp.

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided May 2, 1925PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HAZEL, District Judge.

This is a motion to transfer the above-entitled action to the law side of the court. It is an action to restrain infringement of a patent owned by plaintiff, and a preliminary injunction was demanded, but upon hearing the motion it was ruled that, since the patent would expire within a short time, and as it was denied that defendant sold the infringing washing machines, an injunction pendente lite should be denied. There had been a prior decree in the District Court of Illinois in an action against a customer of defendant, wherein the patent in suit was held valid and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clark v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane Houston Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1919
  3. Tompkins v. International Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
  4. W. W. Sly Mfg. Co. v. Central Iron WorksCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1912
  5. Kittle v. De GraafU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1887

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API