Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Thermoco, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1DissentClark, Circuit Judge
I fear wé are here invoking a bit of ritualism to force unnecessary ambiguity into our judgments, contrary to the precedents and the practicalities of the situation. The unquestioned law is that on the facts here assumed (and proved, in my opinion) the judgment herein is forever binding both for and 'against the Perfex Companies who actually conducted the defense. See cases collected in S. S. Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co., 8 Cir., 96 F.2d 978, 989; Doherty Research Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 7 Cir., 107 F.2d 548.1 Unless the judgment, however, contains a statement of this fact,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- G. & C. Merriam Co. v. SaalfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929
- S. S. Kresge Co. v. Winget Kickernick Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co. v. F. E. Myers & Bro. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
- Freeman-Sweet Co. v. Luminous Unit Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.