National MacHinery Company v. Waterbury Farrel Foundry and MacHine Company and Textron, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
The defendant in this patent suit appeals from an order of the district court denying leave for it to amend its answer so as to assert permissive counterclaims arising out of two patents similar to those on which the plaintiff brought suit. The defendants’ motion was made more than two years after the answer was filed. It was denied by the district judge who said, “The tardy injection of these new issues by the defendant will set off a new string of discovery and disclosure which will undoubtedly delay this case many more months; the plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced in getting its case…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Parr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Telechron, Inc. v. ParissiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Switzer Bros., Inc. v. LocklinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Horner v. FerronCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Nancy Anne Spangler v. United States of America, Appellant-Intervenor v. Pasadena City Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- First National Bank in Dodge City v. Johnson County National Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1964
- United States v. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors v. John E. Milloway, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Western Geophysical Co. of America, Inc. v. Bolt Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.