Legal Opinion

Hoeme v. Jeoffroy

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided December 7, 1938No. 8899PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, as owner" of three United States patents relating to mobile ground working devices, variously called “Shovel Plows, Chisel Plows or Cultivators” brought this suit, alleging infringement and praying injunction and damages. This appeal is from an order refusing, on his motion, to grant a preliminary injunction.

Appellant recognizes that whether a preliminary injunction should be granted in a patent case is discretionary, and that the refusal of such an injunction is the rule, its granting, the exception. He insists that his case is within the exception and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simson Bros. v. Blancard & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
  2. George Cutter Co. v. Metropolitan Electric Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  3. A. B. Dick Co. v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  4. Metropolitan Button Works, Inc. v. JaffeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1937
  5. Andrew Geller Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Ansonia Bootery, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., Caribe Chemical Company, Inc., Ellencee Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., (Three Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  2. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
  3. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Daly-Herring Co.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1968
  4. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API