Legal Opinion
Clinton Engines Corp. v. Briggs & Stratton Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided March 31, 1959No. Civ. 14007PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’SULLIVAN, District Judge.
The matter for decision is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to those matters set forth in paragraphs 15, 18(a), 19 and 21 of plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant contends that all matters contained in said paragraphs were tried, determined and fully adjudicated in a previous suit between these parties wherein the defendant here, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, was plaintiff, and Clinton Machine Company, plaintiff herein, was defendant. Defendant’s mo tion further asserts that there remains now no issue for this Court to try as • to the 'matters set forth and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Park-In-Theatres, Inc. v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Uniflow Manufacturing Co. And Jefferson Ice Company v. King-Seeley Thermos Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- Hoge Warren Zimmermann Co. v. Nourse & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- Cologix Col5, LLC v. 655 Dearborn Park Lane, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2025
- Hoge Warren Zimmermann Co. v. Nourse & Co., and Carl C. Nourse, Nourse & Co., and Carl C. Nourse, Cross-Appellants v. Hoge Warren Zimmermann Co., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961