Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.
156 F.2d 981, 71 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 22, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3864
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided August 26, 1946·No. No. 9066·Published·Cited by 12 cases
Opinion
Scrutiny of the briefs and appendices and careful consideration of the oral arguments convince us that the court below committed no error in respect to count 3 of the complaint, the only count before us for consideration. Accordingly the judgment of the court below will be affirmed on the opinion of Judge Leahy, 61 F.Supp. 767, 771, 772.
Judge O’CONNELL participated in the consideration and decision of this case but was unable to collaborate in the preparation of the opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 156 F.2d 981, 71 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 22, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3864 (3d Cir. 1946).
156 F.2d 981 (Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Baier v. Parker
523 F. Supp. 288 (M.D. Louisiana, 1981)
Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
448 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Nolan v. Judicial Council of Third Circuit
346 F. Supp. 500 (D. New Jersey, 1972)
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Lummus Company
252 A.2d 545 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1968)
Research Electronics & Devices Co. v. Neptune Meter Co.
156 F. Supp. 484 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Lane-Marvey Corp. v. McCaffrey
204 Misc. 166 (New York Supreme Court, 1953)
Alamo Refining Co. v. Shell Development Co.
99 F. Supp. 790 (D. Delaware, 1951)
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Knitting Machines Corp.
90 F. Supp. 763 (D. Delaware, 1950)
Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co. (Two Cases)
180 F.2d 97 (Tenth Circuit, 1950)
Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of America
166 F.2d 286 (Third Circuit, 1948)