SORKIN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• Monroe Auto Equip. Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1964)
  …approach to the problem when it held that “the question of invention is a question of law,” but questions of fact may exist which affect the conclusion of law. National Latex Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 274 F. 2d 224, 238 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 989, 80 S.Ct. 1078, 4 L.Ed.2d 1022. This, we hold, states the proper view. The essential point is that regardless of how important factual issues are in a particular case, the appellate court should be free to give effect to the general legislative sta…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Sperry Prods., Inc., 285 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1960)
  …y it cannot be considered for another similar entry of a different date. We think this exhibit was properly introduced under Section 1732, Title 28 U.S.C. In National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Co., 6 Cir., 274 F. 2d 224, certiorari denied 362 U.S. 989, 80 S.Ct. 1078, 4 L.Ed.2d 1022, reports of the inventor were in evidence but there is no discussion of their admissibility. In Erie R. Co. v. Lade, 6 Cir., 209 F. 2d 948, 951, the Court said: “Rule 43(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.,…
• Emil Richard Yates v. United States, 316 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1963)
  …ime in the future for a full hearing on the contempt matter or do you desire to waive that right and consent that it be heard today? “A. Your Honor, I’d much prefer it be heard today.” . James v. United States, 8 Cir., 275 F. 2d 332, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 989, 80 S.Ct. 1077, 4 L.Ed.2d 1022; Richardson v. United States, 8 Cir., 273 F. 2d 144; Cliett v. Hammonds, 5 Cir., 305 F. 2d 565.…