Legal Opinion
C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. Barnes, Judge
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 21, 1952No. 10512PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAJOR, Chief Judge.
The question for decision is whether the definition of corporate “residence” for venue purposes contained in Title 28 U.S.C. A. § 1391(c) applies to Sec. 1400(b) of the same Title, relating to venue in actions for patent infringement.
On June 26, 1951, Cardox Corporation, an Illinois corporation, instituted in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, its action against C-O-Two Fire Equipment Company, as defendant, charging patent infringement. The complaint alleged that the action arose under the patent laws of the United States, and venue was predicated upon the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ex Parte CollettSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan. Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
- General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Rodney, U.S. District Judge (Two Cases). Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Rodney, U.S. District Judge (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Remington Rand, Inc. v. Knapp-Monarch CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. IgoeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1954
- Clayton v. WarlickCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
- Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.