Mazzella Blasting Mat Co. v. Vitiello

Second Circuit

Mazzella Blasting Mat Co. v. Vitiello

250 F.2d 935

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1957

DocketNo. 11, Docket 24633

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 250 F.2d 935 (Mazzella Blasting Mat Co. v. Vitiello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mazzella Blasting Mat Co. v. Vitiello, 250 F.2d 935 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court’s finding that the plaintiff’s product patent No. 2,474,-904 is invalid for lack of invention and because of prior public manufacture, sale and use is amply supported by the evidence adduced at the six day trial, and we affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Herlands’ opinion reported in 150 F.Supp. 48.

We commend the District Judge’s immediate attention to the preparation of his opinion and decision which was filed fifteen days after the conclusion of the testimony. With the testimony still fresh in mind, the District Judge has stated his impressions of the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him. His judgment of the witnesses, given before the passage of time had dimmed the memory of what can never be adequately preserved by a stenographic record, is thus entitled to great weight. In any event, the testimony and the exhibits overwhelmingly support the findings of the District Judge.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court’s finding that the plaintiff’s product patent No. 2,474,-904 is invalid for lack of invention and because of prior public manufacture, sale and use is amply supported by the evidence adduced at the six day trial, and we affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Herlands’ opinion reported in 150 F.Supp. 48.

We commend the District Judge’s immediate attention to the preparation of his opinion and decision which was filed fifteen days after the conclusion of the testimony. With the testimony still fresh in mind, the District Judge has stated his impressions of the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him. His judgment of the witnesses, given before the passage of time had dimmed the memory of what can never be adequately preserved by a stenographic record, is thus entitled to great weight. In any event, the testimony and the exhibits overwhelmingly support the findings of the District Judge.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 F.2d 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzella-blasting-mat-co-v-vitiello-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack