Legal Opinion
Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 10, 1950No. Civ. No. 1718PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
93 F.Supp. 131 (1950)
AKTIEBOLAGET BOFORS
v.
UNITED STATES.
Civ. No. 1718.
United States District Court District of Columbia.
October 10, 1950.
George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and Ross O'Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant, for the motion.
C. E. Rhetts and Warner W. Gardner, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff, opposed.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
This case involves the nature of the property in a secret process. Specifically the question presented is whether a person to whom a secret process is lawfully disclosed in connection with a license to use it, is guilty of a tortious act…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Brown v. DuchesneSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- AO Smith Corporation v. Petroleum Iron Works Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
- Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States (Two Cases). Aktiebolaget Bofors v. Acheson, Secretary of StateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
- Aleutco Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
- Underwater Storage, Inc. v. United States Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- Sun Oil Co. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1952
- William A. Meier Glass Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.