Legal Opinion

Harley & Lund Corporation v. Murray Rubber Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 1, 1929No. 244PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). There can be spelled out of the complaint a statement that the defendants induced the disclosure of the plaintiff’s secrets upon the false representation that they intended to make a contract. This would fall within the decision of the Third Circuit in Rogers v. Virginia Carolina Chemical Co. (C. C. A.) 149 F. 1, and that of the English Court of Appeal in Edgington v. Fitzmauriee, L. R. 29 Ch. Div. 459. The theory is that a man’s state of mind is as much an existing fact as anything else, and so susceptible of true or false description. We had the point…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Truax v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. DeeringSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1921

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Buxbom v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Diodes, Inc. v. FranzenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. E. W. Bliss Company v. Struthers-Dunn, Inc., P. G. Bartlett, L. K. Clark, D. E. Henry and J. A. DingesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
  5. AMP Inc. v. FleischhackerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987

25 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