ROMAGUERA ET AL.

v.

AMECO CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (27 total)

• Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  …ches and its applicability must be determined in light of the facts of each case. Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc., 726 F. 2d 734 (Fed.Cir.1984); Advanced Hydraulics, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 525 F. 2d 477, 186 USPQ 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 869, 96 S.Ct. 132, 46 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975). In the present case, nothing impeded Rosemount from filing a supplemental complaint or otherwise notifying Beckman of its intent to accuse the Model 960B. Rosemount correctly cites the general rule that only tho…
• Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH for the Max-Planck-Institut fur Kohlenforschung v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …48 (6th Cir. 1979). Laches and estoppel are equitable defenses whose appropriateness must be determined in each case under its particular factual situation. Advanced Hydraulics, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 525 F. 2d 477, 479 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 869, 96 S.Ct. 132, 46 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); Potash Co. of America v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 213 F. 2d 153, 155 (10th Cir. 1954); Shaffer v. Rector Well Equipment Co., 155 F. 2d at 345. Whether the plaintiff should be barred by laches or e…
• Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1983)
  ….W. 2d 322 (Tex.1979). Three justices dissented from the decision of the Texas Supreme Court. . See Hunt v. A Cargo of Petroleum Products Laden on Steam Tanker Hilda, 378 F.Supp. 701 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff’d mem., 515 F. 2d 506 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 869, 96 S.Ct. 132, 46 L.Ed.2d 98 (1975). Coastal claims that the Hilda was not carrying Sarir crude. The Hunts claim that she may have been. . At least, the Hunts’ ostensible purpose in communicating with the oil users was to notify them of the title d…