Legal Opinion

Benjamin Stiller v. Squeez-A-Purse Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 28, 1961No. 14411PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

After a former hearing of this patent suit, our court, on May 2, 1960, affirmed per curiam, the judgment of the United States District Court on the basis of that court’s memorandum opinion, published in 175 F.Supp. 667, 669. Squeez-A-Purse Corporation v. Stiller et al., 280 F.2d 424 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 364 U.S. 828, 81 S.Ct. 67, 5 L.Ed.2d 56. In the opinion and order of the District Court, which we affirmed, it was recited that “it was conceded that Claim 3 of the Reissue Patent No. 24,166 was the only claim to be looked to in determining whether plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Briggs v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. Mutual Life Insurnace v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. In Re PottsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Home Indemnity Co. of New York v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Progress Development Corporation v. MitchellDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1963
  2. Quikey Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. City Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969
  3. Crane Co., a Corporation v. Crane Heating & Air Conditioning Co., a Corporation, Frank J. Crane, Jr., Thomas CraneCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
  4. Meis-Nachtrab v. Griffin (In Re Meis-Nachtrab)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1996
  5. Todd Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015

1 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