WOOD

v.

BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR

Citator

Cited By

• Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 170 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1948)
  …arently a paradox which disappears, however, once we view the Permutit rule as being response to a statutory imperative, a view applied by the same circuit in Benz v. Celeste Fur Dyeing and Dressing Co., 2 Cir., 156 F. 2d 510, 511, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 736, 67 S.Ct. 101, 91 L.Ed. 635. [*10] There it was said that cases like Crown Cork and Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann, supra, are not in point where there was not originally a sufficient disclosure. Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305 U.S.…
• Kessler v. Fleming, 163 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1947)
  …es a violation separate and apart from the contract to sell or of sale.3 Schreffler v. Bowles, 10 Cir., 153 F. 2d 1, 3, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 870, 66 S.Ct. [*467] 1366, 90 L.Ed. 1640; Pickett v. Bowles, 10 Cir., 153 F. 2d 904, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 736, 67 S.Ct. 45. It is well settled that where the law creates two or more rights (as distinguished from remedies), the running of the statute of limitations as to one of such rights does not operate to bar an action based on a subsequently accruing r…
• The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. Jefferson Chem. Co., Inc., 497 F.2d 1283 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …l the new claims were copied from Price in 1958, Heiss is not entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of relation back, 35 U.S.C. § 120 (cf. id. §§ 112, 132), compare Benz v. Celeste Fur Dyeing & Dressing Corp., 156 F. 2d 510 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 736, 67 S.Ct. 101, 91 L.Ed. 635 (1946), with Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Coleman Instruments, Inc., 255 F.Supp. 630, 640-641 (N.D.Ill.1966), aff’d, 385 F. 2d 391, 393 (7 Cir. 1967), a point not specifically raised by General in this court, nor to con…