Legal Opinion
Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel Corporation
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided October 1, 1931No. 1686PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PICARD, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings action against defendant to recover royalties for the use of two distinct types of steel rolling mills. There are really two causes in one, but both are covered by a contract of sale coupled with a license agreement first entered into in April, 1934, which contract embodied an improvement upon a theory of steel rolling in what the art terms a “hot rolling mill” and also the cold rolling of steel without .intermediate annealing.
Previous to 1934 McLouth, president and chief stockholder of defendant, had been a steel salesman but learning that he was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Bauer & Cie v. O'DonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Straus v. Victor Talking MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1954
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1946
- The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee v. Republic Steel Corporation, Republic Steel Corporation v. The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956