SPEVACK
v.
STRAUSS ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court remanded a patent-related dispute to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot if the petitioner paid his patent fee by May 25, 1959 and did not request a delay in issuance, or otherwise to dismiss on the ground that an injunction would not be warranted at that stage of the proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Upon oral argument, it appeared that in the normal course the fee for petitioner’s United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee. .
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court and that court is instructed: (1) If'petitioner has by May 25, 1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue, the case and the restraining orders entered herein by The Chief Justice until the patent issues, and then to dismiss the complaint as moot; (2) otherwise, on May 25, 1959, to, dismiss the complaint on the ground that, apart from the merits of the controversy, the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction at that stage of the proceedings would not be warranted. Upon the fulfillment of either of these conditions, the proceedings heretofore had in the two lower courts are vacated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
United States v. Stromberg, 268 F.2d 256 (2d Cir. 1959)…a convicted criminal awaiting sentence. Upon objection, however, the judge again gave the jury an appropriate admonition. To support their attack on the conduct of the prosecutor, counsel cites Handford v. United States, 359 U.S. 120, 79 S.Ct. 722, 3 L.Ed.2d 673 in which the decision reported in 5 Cir., 260 F. 2d 890 was reversed in a brief Per Curiam, “[u]pon consideration of the entire record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General.” Counsel have made available to us the Solicitor General’s m…
-
United States v. Pearce, 275 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1960)…the courts. Doll v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 95 F. 2d 838; Lindsay v. United States, 10 Cir., 134 F. 2d 960, 961; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F. 2d 867, 868, and Woody v. United States, 6 Cir., 258 F. 2d 535, 536, affirmed per curiam 359 U.S. 118, 79 S.Ct. 721, 3 L.Ed.2d 673. The question decided in those cases is precisely the same as that raised here, and the reasoning employed and result reached are of compelling force. The defendants’ contention on this point is rejected. As previously indicated, a n…
-
Barker v. The State OF Ohio, 328 F.2d 582 (6th Cir. 1964)…F. 2d 274, 276, C.A.8th; United States ex rel. Simkoff v. Mulligan, 67 F. 2d 321, C.A.2nd; McMurtry v. United States, 139 F. 2d 482, C.A.5th. See also: Woody v. United States, 258 F. 2d 535, C.A.6th, affirmed by equally divided court, 359 U.S. 118, 79 S.Ct. 721, 3 L.Ed.2d 673, rehearing denied, 359 U.S. 985, 79 S.Ct. 939, 3 L.Ed.2d 934. It appears clear that Section 2913.01 of the Revised Code of Ohio provides for the two separate offenses (1) forgery of a check with intent to defraud, or (2) uttering or…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence