MAHONING INVESTMENT CO.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• 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…
• Cold Metal Process Co. & The Union Nat'l Bank of Youngstown v. E. W. Bliss Co., 285 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1960)
  …Ct. 323, 1 L.Ed.2d 245. See also: Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel Corp., 6 Cir., 170 F. 2d 369; Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 3 F.Supp. 120, appeal dismissed, 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.N.J., 22 F.Supp. 75, affirmed in part and reversed in part Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 108 F. 2d 322, opinion withdrawn…

  ← 1 / 3 →