Legal Opinion

Carey v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 24, 1964No. 112-58PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitaker, Judge

Plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of a patented process for manufacturing titanium, sue to recover royalties on the use of that process. They claim that defendant, by virtue of its seizure of the assets of Siemens & Halske, a German corporation, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, succeeded to the contractual obligations of that corporation, which had agreed to pay the inventor a royalty in return for an exclusive license to use the patent and to permit others to do so. Plaintiffs say that, from August 1, 1951 to June 25, 1957, defendant, by its own agencies and through…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Horowitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Jones v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1865
  4. Deming v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1865
  5. Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1985
  2. Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
  3. Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1970
  4. COREBRACE LLC v. Star Seismic LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
  5. Bruno New York Industries Corp. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965

5 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