POLLARD ET AL.

v.

HAWFIELD ET AL., ANTE, P. 909

Citator

Cited By

• Dep't of Mental Hygiene of Cal. v. Kirchner, 380 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1965)
  …ople v. Sullivan, 60 Cal. App. 2d 539, 141 P. 2d 230; People v. England, 140 Cal. App. 310, 35 P. 2d 565; 11 Cal. Jur. 2d §272, and cases cited therein. See also Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co., 32 Cal. 2d 378, 196 P. 2d 773, appeal dismissed, 336 U. S. 929. See Note, Supreme Court Treatment of State Court Cases Exhibiting Ambiguous Grounds of Decision, 62 Col. L. Rev. 822 (1962). Appellant’s Reply Brief, p. 2, presented the rhetorical question: “Is not the taking of money from a daughter, or her est…
• King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Refrigerated Dispensers, Inc., 354 F.2d 533 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …Corp. v. Midwestern Instruments, supra, 260 F. 2d at 816; Oliver United Filters v. Silver, 10 Cir., 206 F. 2d 658, 662; Harris v. National Machine Works, 10 Cir., 171 F. 2d 85, 88, cert. denied 336 U.S. 905, 69 S.Ct. 491, 93 L.Ed. 1070, reh. denied 336 U.S. 929, 69 S.Ct. 655, 93 L.Ed. 1090. As said in Mott Corp. v. Sunflower Industries, Inc., supra, 314 F. 2d at 879, “An invention or discovery is new or possesses the requisite element of novelty if it involves the presence of some element, or the new posi…