U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1962

William E. Barrott, Sr., and William E. Barrott, Jr. v. The Drake Casket Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided January 24, 1962 · Miller, Cecil, O'Sullivan

297 F.2d 934; 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 364; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6123 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Truman A. Herron, Cincinnati, Ohio (Herbert C. Brinkman, Jr., Wood, Herron & Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants., Austin A. Webb, Kalamazoo, Mich. (Otis A. Earl, Kalamazoo, Mich., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Malta Manufacturing Company v. Osten (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1963)

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

ORDER.

THE ABOVE CAUSE came on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel. The nature of this litigation, its issues of fact and the points of law involved are adequately set forth in the opinion of the District Judge. Upon a finding that a patent, relied upon by plaintiffs-appellants for a charge of infringement, was *935 invalid, he dismissed the complaint and gave judgment for defendant. From the record, briefs and arguments, it appears that the findings of fact of the District Judge are not clearly erroneous and are supported by the evidence. We agree with the District Judge’s conclusions of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Senior District Judge Raymond Starr, reported as Barrott v. Drake Casket Company, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 284.

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