Legal Opinion

Arthur Kahn Co. v. Switzer Bros.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided October 1, 1951No. Civ. No. 28165PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, Chief Judge.

In renewing the motion for temporary injunction earlier denied in memorandum dated September 7, 1951, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 538, the plaintiff relies upon a statement in the memorandum of the Court inferring that the intervention of the plaintiff in the Texas suit creates a situation in which the law respecting identity of parties and issues is fulfilled, under Cresta Blanca Wine Co. v. Eastern Wine Corporation, 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 1012; Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Electric Products Corp., 3 Cir., 138 F.2d 46; Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 3 Cir., 122 F.2d 925.

Upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crosley Corporation v. Hazeltine CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  2. Cresta Blanca Wine Co. v. Eastern Wine CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  3. Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Electric Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
  4. Arthur Kahn Co. v. Switzer Bros.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1951

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Craggett v. Board of Education of Cleveland City School District, Cuyahoga County, OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1964
  2. Arthur Kahn Co., Inc. v. Switzer Brothers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
  3. Sortex Co. of North America, Inc. v. Mandrel Industries, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1964
  4. Craggett v. Board of Education of Cleveland City School DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API