Legal Opinion

Lyophile-Cryochem Corp. v. Cutter Laboratories, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 9, 1948No. 26970-RPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YANKWICH, District Judge.

The various motions of the defendant heretofore made, argued and submitted are now decided as follows:

I

The motion of the defendant, Cutter Laboratories, Inc., made on July 30, 1948, for a directed verdict for the defendant upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint, on which ruling was reserved by the court, is hereby denied.

II

The motion of the defendant, Cutter Laboratories, Inc., made on August 2, 1948, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and 'the motion in the alternative for a new trial are, and each of -them is, hereby denied.

Comment

The question of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1947
  2. Boulter v. Commercial Standard Ins.District Court, N.D. California · 1948

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
  2. Storey v. CamperSupreme Court of Delaware · 1979
  3. Creagh v. United Fruit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
  4. Labuff v. Texas & New Orleans RailroadDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1954
  5. Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API