Legal Opinion
Himes v. Chadwick
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 24, 1952No. 13100PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POPE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant as owner of “Parks” patent No. 2,Oil,232, 1 and the “Himes” patent No. 2,243,421, 2 brought this action to recover damages for alleged infringement of both patents by the appellee. After a trial by jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence, the appellee moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied and the case submitted upon instructions the correctness of which is not challenged by either party. The jury returned a verdict finding the claims in issue to be valid and infringed. Thereupon defendant-appellee moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Brady v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- United States v. RosenbergCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Kwikset Locks, Inc. v. Hillgren. Hillgren v. Kwikset Locks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- John W. Bentley v. Sunset House Distributing Corp., Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Griffith Rubber Mills, a Corporation v. Henry S. HoffarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.