CONNER

v.

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Eng'g & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1956)
  …ante, p. 439.] For text, see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, ante, at 434-435. For text, see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, ante, at 431. The entire agreement appears in 107 F. 2d 27, 28-29, n. 1. See 3 F. Supp. 120, 68 F. 2d 564, cert. denied, 291 U. S. 675, all relating to Equity No. 2506. The amendment included an express determination that there was “no just reason for delay in entering an order and final judgment disposing of the issues raised by the Report of the Special Master . . . This was don…
• The Cold Metal Process Co. & The Union Nat'l Bank of Youngstown v. Republic Steel Corp., 233 F.2d 828 (6th Cir. 1956)
  …onclusion as to the validity of the apparatus claims is strengthened by the fact that the patents have been upheld in previous adjudications. Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., supra, 3 Cir., 68 F. 2d 564; certiorari denied, 291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 530, 78 L.Ed. 1064. Cold Metal Process Co. v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 75, held ’195 invalid, but was reversed on that point by Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., supra. The prior decisions hol…
• Pac. Far E. Line, Inc. v. The United States, 394 F.2d 990 (Ct. Cl. 1968)
  …ctions mislead plaintiff to its detriment, and good conscience precludes defendant from repudiating its conduct on which PFEL reasonably relied. Mahoning Inv. Co. v. United States, 3 F.Supp. 622, 629-630, 78 Ct.Cl. 231, 246-248 (1933), cert. denied, 291 U.S. 675, 54 S.Ct. 526, 78 L.Ed. 1064 (1934); Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. United States, 98 F.Supp. 757, 768-769, 120 Ct.Cl. 72, 91-93 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 893, 72 S.Ct. 200, 96 L.Ed. 669. These 14 on-route ore voyages must be included in the re…