Legal Opinion
Flynn & Emrich Company v. Henry B. Greenwood and Greenwood Engineering Company, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided March 11, 1957No. 7346_1PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.
This is an action for patent infringement in which the answer sets up the usual defenses of invalidity and denial of infringement. In what is called a “counterclaim”, the defendant avers that by reason of estoppel, the plaintiff can not maintain this action. The District Court heard and decided the question of estoppel in favor of the plaintiff in advance of any hearing on the defenses of infringement and validity. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the District Court certified that no just reason existed for delay in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks, Secretary of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
- Rieser v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Towns v. Yellow Cab Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1978
- Sandor Schwartz v. Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. BrunerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Diener Enterprises, Inc. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Western Geophysical Company of America, Inc. v. Bolt Associates, Inc., Bolt Associates, Inc., Third-Party v. Litton Industries, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.