Legal Opinion
Kingsland v. Dorsey
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 5, 1949No. 53PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Per curiam
Acting under the provisions of § 487 of the Revised Statutes (35 U. S. C. § 11), the Commissioner of Patents found after hearings that petitioner, an attorney, had been guilty of gross misconduct, and entered an order *319barring him from practice before the United States Patent Office. Pursuant to authority granted by the same provisions, the District Court reviewed the Commissioner’s order. Concluding that the hearings had been fairly conducted after due notice of charges and that there was substantial evidence to support the findings and action of the Commissioner, the District Court affirmed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dorsey v. KingslandCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
- Hatch v. OomsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1947
3Cited by63 opinions
- In Re CookCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- Timely Products Corporation, Raphael J. Costanzo v. Stanley ArronCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, American Cyanamid Company v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- True Temper Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Cf&i Steel Corporation, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Louis W. Parker, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Motorola, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.