United States v. Gehl
District Court, N.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
McCURN, Senior District Judge.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
“Once again, a little fish has caused a commotion.” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 132, 106 S.Ct. 2440, 2444, 91 L.Ed.2d 110 (1986) (and cases cited therein). Although those words were not written with this case in mind, they certainly could have been. This time though a great commotion has been caused by tiny salmon eggs.
The defendants Robert J. Gehl, Tempotech Industries, Inc., Gehl Productions, Inc. 1 and George Jackson, 2 are engaged in the business of, among other things, processing, distributing and selling…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- City of Philadelphia v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. ReevesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
- United States v. McDougallDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1998