Legal Opinion
Farrand Optical Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 21, 1961PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RYAN, Chief Judge.
We have previously concluded by our de- • cisión of July 23,1959 (D.C., 175 F.Supp. 230) that the plaintiff may lawfully claim any compensation which it may be entitled to recover under Title 35 U.S.C. § 183 and Title 22 U.S.C. § 1758. The trial of the second phase of this suit, which concerns the fixation of the amount of such compensation, has been delayed by discovery proceedings and accounting studies by the parties.
Plaintiff has waived all claim for compensation under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (Title 22 U.S.C. § 1758). There remains for determination only…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Marconi Wireless Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
- Olsson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1938
- Otto Halpern v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Hornback v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Honeywell International Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.