Legal Opinion

Hisel v. Chrysler Corp.

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided January 18, 1951No. 6288, 6382PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RIDGE, District Judge.

The claims asserted by plaintiff against the several defendants in the above actions present a common question of law and ‘fact. Defendants have moved, in each of said actions, for summary judgment under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The complaints therein charge that “in faith and confidence, upon the invitation of the defendant Chrysler Corporation, which is the parent corporation of defendants Chrysler Sales Corporation, and Chrysler Motor Parts Corporation, (plaintiff) disclosed to defendant Chrysler Corporation the secret nature” of an idea…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Engl v. ætna Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  2. Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Roger Burten D/B/A Rainy Day Games & Toys v. Milton Bradley CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
  2. Marion County Cooperative Ass'n. v. Carnation CoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1954
  3. Houser v. Snap-On Tools CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1962
  4. Marion County Co-Op. Ass'n v. Carnation Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1953
  5. Bible Baptist Church v. StoneCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975

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

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

Powered by the Exa API