Legal Opinion
Brownell v. Schering Corporation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 21, 1955No. Civ. A. 1168-52PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTSHORNE, District Judge.
The prime issue here is whether plaintiff’s Directive and the written instrument, which was signed in January 1952 by defendant Schering Corporation (“Schering”) and by the then Assistant Attorney General as Director of the Office of Alien Property (“Alien Property Custodian”), are lawful and binding. The above instruments, in addition to other matters here immaterial, (1) transfer to the Alien Property Custodian, subject to a license to Schering, a series of patents owned by Schering as of April 18, 1942, as listed in Schedule A attached to such signed agreement,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Mahler v. EbySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jennings v. ReedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
- William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States v. Schering Corporation, Hexagon Laboratories, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Rogers v. Schering CorporationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1958
- Douds v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local No. 680District Court, D. New Jersey · 1955
- Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.