Legal Opinion

Aerated Products Co. v. Aeration Processes, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided January 8, 1951No. 11188PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YANKWICH, District Judge.

On the Merits

The above-entitled cause, heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is now decided as follows:

Judgment will be for the defendant that the plaintiff take nothing by the complaint and that the defendant do have and recover of and from the plaintiff the amounts due from the plaintiff as royalty and franchise charges to date, under the provisions of Sections 3 and 14 of the license agreement of May, 1947, with interest thereon, and without offset, the exact amounts to be computed in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 7(h).

Findings and Judgment to be…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Triplett v. LowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
  4. United States v. BransenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
  5. MacDonald v. Reich & Lievre, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1929

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. Carolina Eastern Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1986
  2. Bank of Hawaii v. CharHawaii Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Seymour R. Rayor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
  4. In re Barry Yao Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1959
  5. Bernard v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987

2 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