FORT

v.

CITY OF MIAMI; HELLER V. CONNECTICUT; SOUTH SHORE PACKING CORP. V. CITY OF VERMILION; PRICE, DBA HOWARD PRICE & CO. V. STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ET AL.; WETHERALL ET AL. V. STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ET AL.; JACKSON ET AL. V. WESTERN GEOTHERMAL, INC., ET AL.; WILLIS V. O'BRIEN, JUDGE; PINTO, PRISON FARM SUPERINTENDENT V. PIERCE; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. WALKER; MOTOROLA, INC. V. ARMSTRONG, EXECUTRIX; STIEF V. J. A. SEXAUER MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL.; WYLEY V. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY; WALKER V. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION ET AL.; DEDMON V. OLIVER, WARDEN, ET AL.; STARNER V. RUSSELL, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; ANDERSON V. CALIFORNIA; JACKSON V. WILSON, WARDEN, ET AL.; MARTINEZ V. CALIFORNIA; DENTO V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Maxon Premix Burner Co., Inc. v. Eclipse Fuel Eng'g Co., 471 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1972)
  …not think its delay in filing suit barred injunctive relief against future infringement.6 This court held in Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc., 374 F. 2d 764, 769 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 95, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 (1967), rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 997, 88 S.Ct. 464, 19 L.Ed.2d 500, that “[a] suit pending to sustain the validity of a patent is notice to all infringers of the insistence of the patentee upon his claimed rights.” Here, Eclipse had full notice that Maxon intended to enforce its patent…
• Walker v. The Pulitzer Publ'g Co., 394 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1968)
  …s affirmed in reduced amount, 191 So. 2d 727 (La.App.1966). As to Associated Press: writ denied, 250 La. 98, 194 So. 2d 97 (1967); cert. granted, judgment reversed and case remanded, 389 U.S. 28, 88 S.Ct. 106, 19 L.Ed.2d 28 (1967); rehearing denied, 389 U.S. 997, 88 S.Ct. 462, 19 L.Ed.2d 500 (1967). As to Times-Picayune Publishing Corp.: limited writ granted, 250 La. 102, 194 So. 2d 99 (1967); judgment reversed and suit dismissed, 251 La. 772, 206 So. 2d 489 (1968). 5. Walker v. Denver Post, Inc. and Assoc…