Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Ooms
158 F.2d 549, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 417
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 9, 1946·No. No. 9135·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
It seems to us that the evidence affords a rational basis for the decision of the District Court which upheld the action of the Patent Office. Consequently we think the judgment of the District Court is correct.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Ooms, 158 F.2d 549, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 417 (D.C. Cir. 1946).
158 F.2d 549 (Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Ooms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. The Honorable June L. Green, (Two Cases). Eugene Byrd v. United States
499 F.2d 538 (D.C. Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Donald Wallace Perkins, United States of America v. Gerald Leonard Whitmore
433 F.2d 1182 (D.C. Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Winston
267 F. Supp. 555 (S.D. New York, 1967)
John R. Frost v. Leon R. Yankwich, Chief Judge, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division
254 F.2d 633 (Ninth Circuit, 1958)
United States v. Bessie
75 F. Supp. 95 (S.D. California, 1947)