Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
McCAMANT, Circuit Judge.
The points at issue between the parties have chiefly to do with the scope of plaintiff’s patent, the effect of the litigation in which its validity was adjudged, and the extent of the master’s authority in passing on the questions in dispute.
In plaintiff’s machine the peaches are subjected to a bath in a hot solution of lyo for the purpose of disintegrating the skin. They are then delivered to a conveyor, on which they pass between rotary brushes, which turn the poaches so that each peach is subjected to forcible jets of water, which wash off the disintegrated skin.…
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Coupe v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Faulkner v. GibbsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Olsson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1938
- Reinharts, Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Activated Sludge v. Sanitary Dist. of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
- Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.