Legal Opinion

Cheney Co. v. City of Medford

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided November 20, 1933No. Nos. 3667, 3668PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MeBELLAN, District Judge.

These are two suits for infringement brought by the plaintiff, the Cheney Company; the first against the City of Medford and American Employers’ Insurance Company; and the second against E. Van Noorden Company. The alleged facts of infringement were the same in both eases and they were tried together.

It was stipulated between the parties, and I find, that the plaintiff is now and continuously has been since the date of issuance thereof, the sole owner of letters patent of the United States No. 1,715,000' for an interlocking metal flashing, grunted May 28,1920, to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  4. Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Johnson Bros. Engineering Corp. v. Caille Bros.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API