WHETSTONE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Truck Drivers Union Local NO. 413 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 334 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
  …ts the conditions -expressed in the proviso-to § 8(b) (4) 5 of the Act. Clearly this-is the law. See National Labor Relations Board v. Rockaway News Co., supra; Meier & Pohlmann Furniture Company v. Gibbons, 8 Cir., 233 F. 2d 296, 301, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 879, 77 S.Ct. 101, 1 L.Ed.2d 80 (1956). The remaining question concerns refusals to cross a picket line at another employer’s premises where that line does-not meet the conditions of the § 8(b) (4) proviso. The unions maintain that refusal to cross any…
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 258 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1958)
  …ways is whether the inventive act is of sufficient magnitude to justify the extension of a legal monopoly for the matter covered by the claims.” Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., v. Sales Affiliates, 2 Cir., 1956, 233 F. 2d 148, 152, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 879, 77 S.Ct. 101, 1 L.Ed. 2d 80. It is true that a patentee cannot arbitrarily select a range in a known progressive change and maintain a patent monopoly on the products falling within that range on the ground that the designated range produces optim…
• United States v. Orion T. Whiting, Jr., 311 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1962)
  …ot invalidate a search under a proper search warrant but merely subjects the offender to the penalties provided by § 2234. See United States v. Freeman, (D.C.1957), 144 F.Supp. 669; Barrientes v. United States, 5 Cir., 235 F. 2d 116, 117, cert. den. 352 U.S. 879, 77 S.Ct. 102, 1 L.Ed. 2d 80.…