Legal Opinion
Amburn v. Harold Forster Industries, Ltd.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 14, 1976No. Civ. A. 76-71002PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER QUASHING SERVICE OF PROCESS OF DEFENDANTS
CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, District Judge.
The defendants in this action, two Canadian corporations, have moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the person of either defendant.
Plaintiffs are a Michigan resident and a Michigan corporation, the patentee and exclusive licensee of a patent on a device which magnetically treats seeds to attempt to increase crop yields. Defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling a similar device which is alleged in Count I of the Complaint to infringe the plaintiffs’ patent. Count II charges…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Herman Theunissen and Ann Theunissen v. Sid Matthews D/B/A Matthews Lumber TransferCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Beverly Hills Fan Company v. Royal Sovereign Corp. And Ultec Enterprises Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Cognitronics Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Recognition Research Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.