Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the Court
Mr» Chief Justice Taft,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The evidence in the case establishes that before Eibel entered the field, continued high speeds in the wire of the Fourdrinier machine much beyond five hundred feet a minute resulted in defective paper. Eibel concluded that this was due to the disturbance and ripples in the stock as it was forming at a point between the breast roll and the first suction box, caused by the fact that at that point the wire was travelling much faster than the stock, and that if at that point the speed of the flowing stock…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by571 opinions
- United States v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Diamond v. DiehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Parker v. FlookSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
566 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.