Legal Opinion

Hatch v. Ooms

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided January 23, 1947No. Civil Actions 29517, 29528, 29530PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Justice.

These proceedings were brought in this Court pursuant to Section 11, Title 35 U.S.C.A., and Rule 95, Title VIII of the Rules of this Court to review Orders Nos. 3937, 3938 and 3939 of Conway P. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, all dated May 18, 1945, disbarring from practice before the United States Patent Office for gross misconduct the petitioners Henry W. Carter, Vernon M. Dorsey and Roswell F. Hatch, respectively. The respondent in these proceedings here is the successor in office to the Commissioner of Patents whose action is sought to be reviewed. Upon motion of each…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1942
  3. Shawkee Manufacturing Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kingsland v. DorseySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Cupples v. MarzallDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1952
  3. United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1947
  4. Borden Co. v. Clearfield Cheese Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  5. Allen v. Ideal Products, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1969

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API