Legal Opinion
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Metals Disintegrating Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 1, 1948No. Civil Action No. 9606PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FAKE, District Judge.
The issues here, as they appear in the moving papers, may be separated under two distinct headings. One, a motion directed to the complaint as a sham or false pleading. The other, a motion directed to the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law on its face and without the aid of depositions.
The questions directed to the complaint as a sham pleading will be considered first.
The complaint is based on a written agreement entered into between the parties to this suit wherein certain royalties are provided for the use of some six patents. The agreement recites that the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Metals Disintegrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1975
- Farbenfabriken Bayer A.G. v. Sterling Drug, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Shotwell v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1958
- Metals Disintegrating Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1950
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.