Illinois Central Railroad v. Turrill
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEALS FROM THE CIROUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. ’
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
The effect of the judgments in these cases, when here on the former appeals, as reported under the name of the Cawood Patent, 94 U. S. 695, . was to affirm the decrees then appealed from, so far as they charged these appellants respectively with the profits made from the use of the infringing machines known as the “Illinois Central,” the “Etheridge,” and the “ Whitcomb,” and to reverse as to the profits made by the use of the “Bayonet Yise,” the “Michigan Southern,” and the “Bebee & Smith,” which were adjudged to be non-infringing machines. The total amount of profits arising from the use of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Littlefield v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Parks v. BoothSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Cawood PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Gordon v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Sullivan v. Associated Billposters & Distributors of United States & CanadaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Sperbeck v. A. L. Burbank & Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.