BLACK ET AL.

v.

STRAND ET AL.; BLACK ET AL. V. BRANDO, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL.; BLACK ET AL. V. DENVER UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK; AND BRANDO, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. V. BLACK ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1972)
  …tland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., 282 F. 2d 680 (CA9 1960); Niemiec v. Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 705 (WD Wash. 1946). See State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis. 2d 699, 144 N. W. 2d 1, cert. denied, 385 U. S. 990 (1966). The case’s final chapter is International Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U. S. 242 (1959). See also Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 1049, 1060 (CD Cal. 1971); Washington Professional Basketball Corp. v. National…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Black v. Keystone Steel Fabrication, Inc., 584 F.2d 946 (10th Cir. 1978)
  …ent validity is established in the first trial, then a trial on the issue of claimed infringement follows. See McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F. 2d 381, 388 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 933, 86 S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851, 385 U.S. 990, 87 S.Ct. 601, 17 L.Ed.2d 451 (1966). In the instant case, the trial court heard both validity and infringement testimony in the same proceeding. There is no doubt that BS&B reserved its claimed right to try the validity issue to a jury. However, we…
• Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. OF Am., 902 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1990)
  …. “ ‘The key element of accord and satisfaction is the intention of the parties, which as a rule presents a question of fact.’ ” Milgard I, 761 F. 2d at 557 (quoting Black v. Denver United States Nat. Bank, 362 F. 2d 38, 41 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 990, 87 S.Ct. 596, 17 L.Ed.2d 451 (1966)). The trier of fact must determine whether there was a meeting of minds as to the subject matter of the new agreement and an intention to reach a genuine compromise. Plywood Mktg. Assoc. v. Astoria Plywood Corp.,…