green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952
1989
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.M. Huber Corp. v. Positive Action Tool of Ohio Co.
While summary judgment is not improper per se in a patent case, if summary judgment is to be used, the case for summary judgment must be made out “clearly and beyond the peradventure of a doubt.” Gray Tool Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 186 F.2d 365 , 366 n. 3 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 341 U.S. 934 , 71 S.Ct. 854 , 95 L.Ed. 1363 *283 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see"
Samuel v. McDaniel
(2×)
See Calderon v. Tobin, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 134 , 187 F. 2 d 514, cert. den. 341 U.S. 935 , 71 S.Ct. 854 , 95 L.Ed. 1363 , rehearing denied 342 U.S. 843 , 72 S.Ct. 22 , 96 L.Ed. 637 (1951); Teplitsky v. Bureau of Compensation U.S. Dept. of Labor, 288 F. Supp. 310 ( S.D.N.Y . ), aff'd o.b. 398 F. 2 d 820 (2 Cir. ), cert. den. 393 U.S. 943 , 89 S.Ct. 311 , 21 L.Ed. 2 d 280 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Philco Corporation v. Radio Corporation of America
(2×)
See Gray Tool Co. v. Humble Oil Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 365, 367 , cert[iorari] denied, 341 U.S. 934 , [ 71 S.Ct. 854 , 95 L.Ed. 1363 ], where it was held that ‘A judge may not, on motion for summary judgment, draw fact inferences * * * such inferences may be drawn only on a trial’.” “As we earlier stated, ‘Documents filed in support of a motion for summary judgment are to be used for determining whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the fact issues themselves.’ ” We have already taken the position that, were we presented with nothing more than the complaint…
discussed
Cited "see"
Francis G. Bragen v. Hudson County News Company, Inc
(2×)
See Gray Tool Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 365, 367 , certiorari denied 341 U.S. 934 , 71 S.Ct. 854 , 95 L.Ed. 1363 , where it was held that “‘A judge may not, on a motion for summary judgment, draw fact inferences. * * * Such inferences may be drawn only on a trial.” ’ Here, in the instance cited, the District Court “found” from the deposition, that an inference of monopolistic practice existed by reason of the unchallenged “tie-in-sales” and then proceeded to make the factual finding that the existing inference was “negatived” by other “facts…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Calderon
v.
Tobin, Secretary of Labor
v.
Tobin, Secretary of Labor
No. 655.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 21, 1951.
F. Trowbridge vom Baur and Ralph E. Becker for petitioners. Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Baldridge, Paul A. Sweeney and Morton Hollander for respondents.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.