Legal Opinion
Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided February 5, 1940No. 220PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
Motion is made to dismiss the amended complaint in this action on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff, having invented an automatic starting switch for automobiles in 1924, upon which he secured Patent No. 1,635,078, and having in 1929 invented an improvement thereon, did, in 1931, disclose said improvement to the defendant through its Rochester, New York, subsidiary, in confidence. The defendant examined and tested the invention at length and declined to interest itself in it.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
- Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
- Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Kalten-BachCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pennington Engineering Co. v. Houde Engineering Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
- Eldridge v. Springs Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Pennington Engineering Co. v. Houde Engineering Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941