Legal Opinion
Hall v. Keller
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Decided November 5, 1948No. Civ. 2315PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PORTERIE, District Judge.
The plaintiff bought the allegedly infringing device from J. Frank Keller, a resident of this District, at his place of business in this District; so follows our jurisdiction. Immediately, the manufacturer, the B. & W., Inc., by stipulation, became the real defendant and J. Frank Keller, the local dealer, went out of the suit. The device is a cement casing centralizer, used in the boring of oil wells.1
At the trial, the plaintiff placed objectively his device (Exhibit “E”) and -the infringing device (Exhibit “F”) in the record.
To help in knowing what is the subject of…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hall v. KellerDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1949
- Shaffer v. ArmerDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1949