Legal Opinion

C. F. Burgess Laboratories, Inc. v. Coast Insulating Corp.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided May 9, 1939No. Eq-1027-JPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMES, District Judge.

The art to he considered in this case is within the field of acoustics; particularly as it has to do with sound wave diffraction in relation to the absorption of sound in walls or ceilings. It has long been the purpose of builders to do two things; so construct division partitions, ceilings or walls that (1) sound created within a room will be absorbed in the wall and not reflected, and (2) that the sound-absorbing effect, when accomplished by sound-deadening means, will prevent the transmission of such sound through the intervening material into adjacent space.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. M. Swift & Sons, Inc. v. W. H. Coe Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1939
  3. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Delaney Patents Corp. v. Johns-ManvilleDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1939
  2. Burgess Battery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API