American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc.

Sixth Circuit

American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc.

418 F.2d 571, 163 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 1969

Docket19657

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 571 (American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc., 418 F.2d 571, 163 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193 (6th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On consideration of plaintiff-appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal and the briefs and records in this proceeding; and

Noting that the District Judge’s Order, filed April 24, 1969, was a reference to a Special Master and specifically retained jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding, and hence was not a final order; and

Further, noting that the order was not of the class of “judgments in civil actions for patent infringement which are final except for accounting” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (4), (1964), but rather was an interlocutory order in a contempt proceeding (see International Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, Ltd., 93 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1937)),

Said motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. Rule 8, Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

On consideration of plaintiff-appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal and the briefs and records in this proceeding; and

Noting that the District Judge’s Order, filed April 24, 1969, was a reference to a Special Master and specifically retained jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding, and hence was not a final order; and

Further, noting that the order was not of the class of “judgments in civil actions for patent infringement which are final except for accounting” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (4), (1964), but rather was an interlocutory order in a contempt proceeding (see International Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, Ltd., 93 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1937)),

Said motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. Rule 8, Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

601 F.2d 1269 (Third Circuit, 1979)

United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Ass'n of Steel Haulers

601 F.2d 1269 (Third Circuit, 1979)

SCHLEGEL MANUFACTURING CO. v. King Aluminum Corp.

381 F. Supp. 649 (S.D. Ohio, 1974)

Sylvia Silvers v. Ttc Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation

484 F.2d 194 (Sixth Circuit, 1973)

Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Ionic Electrostatic Corporation

431 F.2d 947 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F.2d 571, 163 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-saint-gobain-corporation-v-armstrong-glass-company-inc-ca6-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack