Legal Opinion
Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided April 27, 1953No. Civil Action 4276PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HINCKS, Chief Judge.
Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff, hereinafter called “Hamilton”, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and having its principal place of business in Lancaster, Pa., and is therefore a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, hereinafter called “Benrus”, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and has its principal office in New York City and therefore is a citizen of New York. Defendant maintains an office and operates a factory in Waterbury, Connecticut, and therefore…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc. v. Buffalo Evening News, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Missouri Portland Cement Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. Cargill, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, and the First BostoncorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1974
- Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- American Crystal Sugar Company v. The Cuban-American Sugar CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.