Legal Opinion
Coleman Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Holly Manufacturing Company, a Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 25, 1959No. 16141PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROSS, District Judge.
After a patent has been adjudged valid and infringed, as has been done in the case before us, the question of damages for that infringement is necessarily one of detail.
In such an appeal, there presses upon the reviewing court, with more than the usual insistence, the immemorial canon that, given substantial evidence to support its judgment, the trial court must have its way.
Such is the situation that confronts us here.
1. Statement of the Case.
This appeal concerns the accounting for damages, which accounting was conducted by the District Court after the mandate was issued…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Himely v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- The Coleman Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Holly Manufacturing Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Bristol Laboratories, Inc. v. Schenley Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1953
3Cited by28 opinions
- Ksm Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Company, Inc. And Erico Jones CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Leesona Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
- Milgo Electronic Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. United Business Communications, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, DefendantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Burlington Northern, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- American Safety Table Co. v. SchreiberCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.