WIGTON

v.

COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Foltz v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc., 189 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1951)
  …ent to the President and to the Secretary of the Treasury seeking to obtain the removal of the plaintiff from a federal office. It was held that malice made the letters actionable. Cf. Previn v. Tenacre, Inc., 3 Cir., 70 F. 2d 389, certiorari denied 291 U.S. 677, 54 S.Ct. 528, 78 L.Ed. 1065; Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App.D.C. 280, 86 F. 2d 836, 840, 110 A.L.R. 393. We think that communications to the F. B. I. are in the same category. Nor do we think that the rationale of the White case need be ma…
• Balinovic v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 113 F.2d 505 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
  …, 155 N.W. 929, L.R.A.1918C, 1077; Vilas County v. Industrial Comm. of Wisconsin, 200 Wis. 451, 228 N.W. 591; Mitchell v. Industrial Comm. of Ohio, 57 Ohio App. 319, 13 N.E. 2d 736. Phelps v. Boone, 62 App.D.C. 308, 67 F. 2d 574, certiorari denied, 291 U.S. 677, 54 S.Ct. 528, 78 L.Ed. 1065. Whether the government should be responsible, as a private employer would be, in such cases as this, is for Congress to decide. Western Marine & Salvage Co. v. Ball, 59 App.D.C. 208, 37 F. 2d 1004, certiorari denied,…
• Kingsland v. Carter Carburetor Corp., 168 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
  …een acting within his authority. The absence of a right of appeal to the Commissioner where Rule 124 applies does not mean that he cannot exercise his supervisory authority on request. Wigton v. Coe, 62 App.D.C. 367, 68 F. 2d 414, certiorari denied, 291 U.S. 677, 54 S.Ct. 528, 78 L.Ed. 1065. The difference between the two processes is much like that between appeal and certiorari. The Patent Office Rules not only do not but could not limit the Commissioner’s supervisory authority. For R.S. § 481, as amended,…