Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 11, 1929No. 42PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The first patent was for a vestibule between two ears in what is called an “articulated train.” This means that the adjacent ends of each ear on the train are carried by a single truck, thus avoiding the need of two trucks for each ear, and requiring but one more truck for the train than there are cars. The patent discloses such a train (part of whieh is the subject of the third patent), but claims only certain features of the vestibule, whieh secure to the passengers a safe passage from car to ear. To insure this it is necessary that such a vestibule shall rotate on…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  2. Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  3. Nachman Spring-Filled Corp. v. Spring Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  4. Cincinnati Car Co. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  5. Cincinnati Traction Bldg. Co. v. Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1940

3 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