Benz v. Celeste Fur Dyeing & Dressing Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
We cannot agree with plaintiffs’ contention that the trial judge’s decision involved a determination of issues of fact which either were or should have been left to the jury. He had instructed the jury to interpret the claims in suit as not requiring the use of cresol. In subsequently reaching his decision to enter judgment for the defendants despite the verdict, he dealt solely with questions of "law,” there being no issues of fact bearing thereon which should have been submitted to the jury.
We agree with the judge that there was no evidence that Calva had disclosed to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Engineering Development Laboratories v. Radio Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Katz v. Horni Signal Mfg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Benz v. Celeste Fur Dyeing & Dressing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hazeltine Research v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Oelbaum v. Lovable CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Armour and Company v. Wilson & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1958
- The General Tire & Rubber Company v. Jefferson Chemical Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.