Legal Opinion
Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 19, 1955No. 2991 in EquityPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, District Judgé.
Both parties have filed objections to the report of a Special Master appointed by the court to ascertain what payment is due from defendant to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are Cold Metal Process Company and The Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee, herein to be called “Cold Metal.” Defendant is the United Engineering and Foundry Company, herein to be called “United.” A written contract executed between these parties, dated June 30, 1927, is the basis for this twenty year legal battle. The decision of the Court of Appeals of this Circuit, 107 F.2d 27, held that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1933
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Warren M. Wilson v. Homestead Valve Manufacturing Company. Appeal of Warren M. Wilson. Appeal of Homestead Valve Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. E. W. Bliss Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Zoltek Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- Schulman v. SchulmanNevada Supreme Court · 1976
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Aluminum Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.