Legal Opinion

Henry L. Hayes v. Frank W. Livermont

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided May 26, 1960No. 15385PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

The District Court held that the term “adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts”, in 35 U.S.C. § 146, which concerns review of Patent Office decisions, is “not limited to plurality of defendants but may involve one plaintiff and one defendant if each resides in a separate district.” This was error. Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 70 App.D.C. 2, 102 F.2d 270. Cf. Chris Laganas Shoe Co. v. Watson, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 221 F.2d 881. Since appellant resides in Michigan and was not served with process in the District of Columbia, this suit against him cannot be maintained here. The order…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. ThomsenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955
  2. Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc. v. Frank W. KnowlesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
  4. Chris Laganas Shoe Company v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, and Brown Shoe Company, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1955

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Goldlawr, Inc. v. HeimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Marve A. Dubin v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  3. Ingersoll-Rand Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
  4. Goldlawr, Inc. v. Marcus Heiman, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. GoldeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  5. Adolph Hohensee v. News Syndicate, Inc., Etc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961

11 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