Legal Opinion
Bach v. Friden Calculating MacH. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided May 13, 1946No. 10098PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONS, Circuit Judge.
The corporate appellee is a manufac turer of calculating machines and the appellants were its distributors in the Cincinnati area from June 13, 1935 until on May 15, 1944 the manufacturer undertook to dissolve the arrangement and appoint appellee Gunderson as its distributor in the territory. Appellants promptly sued to restrain interference with their franchise. Permanent injunction was denied and the cause dismissed. An earlier appeal was remanded for findings of fact, 148 F.2d 407. After making such findings and announcing conclusions of law, the district court (again…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Moran v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. v. LajoieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Bach v. Friden Calculating MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
- Kuhn v. Princess Lida of Thurn & TaxisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Co.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1970
- Howard Bateman and Marguerite B. Jones, Partners, Trading as Ernest Jones Company v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Connolly v. GishwillerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
- Noland Company, Incorporated, and Third-Party and Cross-Appellant v. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Third-Party and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Industrial Equipment Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Emerson Electric Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.