Legal Opinion
Springer v. J. R. Clark Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided July 6, 1942No. 269 CivilPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOYCE, District Judge.
A pre-trial conference was the subject of the court’s order filed herein on September 30, 1941. The facts therein appearing were agreed upon between respective counsel. They are too voluminous to be incorporated in this memorandum. However, by reference they are made a part hereof and the following short facts are set forth to afford at this time a clear picture of the controversy.
Aaron M. Springer was plaintiff’s husband and the inventor of an ironing board device later patented. He assigned his rights in and to such device and under such patent to Oregon Woodenware…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Christmas v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Farmers' Bank v. HayesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- In Re Waterson, Berlin & Snyder Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- In Re Norcor Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Havana Press Drill Co. v. AshurstIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Springer v. J. R. Clark Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Guaranty State Bank of St. Paul v. LindquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- First National Bank in Worthington v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Hardle v. Preston Energy, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985