Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.

Second Circuit

Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.

279 F.2d 337

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1960

DocketNo. 325, Docket 26061

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 279 F.2d 337 (Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.) 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

Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co., 279 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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]*338priated, 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

PER CURIAM.

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]*338priated, were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff’s window which was available on the open market.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F.2d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speciner-v-reynolds-metals-co-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack