Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.
279 F.2d 337
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 9, 1960·No. No. 325, Docket 26061·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
We affirm the judgment below on Judge Dimock’s thorough analysis of the facts and his discussion of the relevant principles and authorities set forth in his opinion reported at 177 F.Supp. 291 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959). An examination of the exhibits fully supports Judge Dimock’s finding that all of the features of the plaintiff’s aluminum casement window which the defendant is alleged to have appro[338] priated, were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff’s window which was available on the open market.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co., 279 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1960).
279 F.2d 337 (Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reed Construction Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
49 F. Supp. 3d 385 (S.D. New York, 2014)
LinkCo, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd.
230 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Hudson Hotels Corporation v. Choice Hotels International, and Robert Hazard
995 F.2d 1173 (Second Circuit, 1993)
I. Jonas Speciner, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abc Steel Equipment Co., Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Company
279 F.2d 337 (Second Circuit, 1960)