Legal Opinion
Fischer v. Karl
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided April 25, 1949No. Civil Action 6719PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAROLD M. KENNEDY, District Judge.
This is a motion to file an amended complaint. The claim of the plaintiff is that she owns a certain valid patent which the defendants are infringing. The case was commenced in 1946. On July 15, 1946, the defendants Ammiel F. Decker and Mabel P. Decker procured an order quashing the service of the summons against them on the ground that they weré residents of the Southern District of New York, and under the statute as it then stood, 28 U.S.C.A. § 109, it was impossible in patent suits to sue any defendant in a district of which he was not an inhabitant or in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Krenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- United States v. National City Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1948
- Pascarella v. New York Cent. R. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1948
- Fischer v. KarlDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1946
3Cited by10 opinions
- C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. Barnes, JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
- Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1950
- Dalton v. Shakespeare Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- Kamkap, Inc. v. Worldsbest Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.