W. Reuen Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc., a Michigan Corporation

D.C. Circuit

W. Reuen Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc., a Michigan Corporation

312 F.2d 880

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1963

Docket16746_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 312 F.2d 880 (W. Reuen Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc., a Michigan Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. Reuen Fisher v. North Branch Products, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, 312 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is a sequel to North Branch Products, Inc. v. Fisher, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 182, 284 F.2d 611 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 705 (1961). After our remand, the case came to trial in the District Court, and resulted in a judgment against Fisher, requiring him to assign certain patents to the plaintiff corporation. This appeal followed.

Appellant makes a number of contentions. Inter alia,, he urges that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. But this was decided against appellant in our earlier decision, cited above, and *881 will not be reopened now. He also attacks the findings of fact of the District Court as clearly erroneous. They do not appear so to us. Nor do the conclusions of law appear in error. The judgment of the District Court will accordingly be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is a sequel to North Branch Products, Inc. v. Fisher, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 182, 284 F.2d 611 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. 713, 5 L.Ed.2d 705 (1961). After our remand, the case came to trial in the District Court, and resulted in a judgment against Fisher, requiring him to assign certain patents to the plaintiff corporation. This appeal followed.

Appellant makes a number of contentions. Inter alia,, he urges that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. But this was decided against appellant in our earlier decision, cited above, and *881 will not be reopened now. He also attacks the findings of fact of the District Court as clearly erroneous. They do not appear so to us. Nor do the conclusions of law appear in error. The judgment of the District Court will accordingly be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-reuen-fisher-v-north-branch-products-inc-a-michigan-corporation-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack