Aircraftsmen, Inc. v. Aircraft Equip. Co., 383 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Aircraftsmen, Inc. v. Aircraft Equip. Co., 383 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hanover v. Northrup (ctd, 1970-05-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hanover v. Northrup
D. Conn. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 258 F.Supp. 971 (S.D.Iowa 1966), aff’d, 383 F.2d 988 (8th Cir. 1967), rev’d, 393 U.S. 503 , 89 S.Ct. 733 , 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969); Sheldon v. Fannin, 221 F.Supp. 766 (D.Ariz.1963).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense v. Arlo Tatum
SCOTUS · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 258 F. Supp. 971 (SD Iowa 1966), affirmed by an equally divided court, 383 F. 2d 988 (CA8 1967), certiorari granted and judgment reversed, 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AIRCRAFTSMEN, INC., Appellant,
v.
AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Appellee
23535.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 6, 1967.
383 F.2d 988
William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D. C., Richard A. Pallot, Miami, Fla., (Pallot, Silver, Pallot & Stern, Miami, Fla., Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant., James E. Cockfield, Washington, D. C., Thomas H. Anderson, Miami, Fla., (James P. Burns, Burns, Doane, Benedict, Swecker & Mathis, Washington, D. C., Shutts & Bowen, Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellee.
Brown, Coleman, Per Curiam, Simpson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal by the plaintiff below is from a judgment holding United States Letters Patent 2,828,166 invalid and not to have been infringed by defendant-appellee. All issues of law and fact were exhaustively considered and decided by the District Court in a published opinion, 247 F.Supp. 469 (1965). Upon thorough consideration of the appeal, including[*989] briefs and fine arguments here, we are left in no doubt that the case was correctly decided. This being so, no worthwhile service is to be accomplished by any paraphrasing of an opinion already published.

The judgment of the District Court, therefore, is

Affirmed.