James L. Huston and Dayton Bait Company v. Buckeye Bait Corporation, Buckeye Molding Company, and William H. Robinson
237 F.2d 920, 112 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 4
Opinion
The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel, and the court being duly advised,
Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be and is hereby affirmed upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the district court and for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Cecil. 145 F.Supp. 600.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James L. Huston and Dayton Bait Company v. Buckeye Bait Corporation, Buckeye Molding Company, and William H. Robinson, 237 F.2d 920, 112 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 4 (6th Cir. 1956).
237 F.2d 920 (James L. Huston and Dayton Bait Company v. Buckeye Bait Corporation, Buckeye Molding Company, and William H. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Huston v. Buckeye Bait Corporation
145 F. Supp. 600 (S.D. Ohio, 1956)