U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1946

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided August 26, 1946

156 F.2d 981; 71 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 22; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3864 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

William F. Hall, of Washington, D.C. (William S. Potter, of Wilmington, Del., and R. G. Mullee, of New York City, on the brief), for appellants., GeorgeT. Haight, of Chicago, Ill. (Robert F. Campbell and Lester B. Qark, both of Houston, Tex., and Arthur G. Connolly, of Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1980)
Alamo Refining Co. v. Shell Development Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1951)
Baier v. Parker (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 1981)
Nolan v. Judicial Council of Third Circuit (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Lummus Company (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1968)
Research Electronics & Devices Co. v. Neptune Meter Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
Lane-Marvey Corp. v. McCaffrey (New York Supreme Court 1953)
Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co. (Two Cases) (10th Cir. 1950)
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Knitting Machines Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1950)
Alamo Refining Co. v. Shell DevelOpment Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1949)
Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of America (3d Cir. 1948)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Scrutiny of the briefs and appendices and careful consideration of the oral arguments convince us that the court below committed no error in respect to count 3 of the complaint, the only count before us for consideration. Accordingly the judgment of the court below will be affirmed on the opinion of Judge Leahy, 61 F.Supp. 767, 771, 772.

Judge O’CONNELL participated in the consideration and decision of this case but was unable to collaborate in the preparation of the opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.