Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cover v. Schwartz

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 17, 1942No. 74, 75Published

1DissentClark, Circuit Judge

I can see no reason for the dismissal of the appeal as to Patent No. 2,000,064. True, the matter may not be of vital importance to the parties if, as' the opinion indicates and I believe, the judgment below was correct. The parties then have the unsatisfying result that decision upon the issue they have thoroughly briefed and argued, the only issue adjudicated below, has been avoided by the court for a procedural nicety, which, had the plaintiff been gifted with unusual vision, he would have avoided by the change of a word or two in his brief. But the defendant still has the judgment to which…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Nashville, C. & St. LR Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Electrical Fittings Corp. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  5. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942

9 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