green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.4 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1987 ·
…patents are not limited to the structure described and shown, but the invention may be embodied in various forms.... infringement is not avoided by combining two elements of a claim in one part
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1943 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1943
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
(4×)
patents are not limited to the structure described and shown, but the invention may be embodied in various forms.... infringement is not avoided by combining two elements of a claim in one part
cited
Cited "see"
La Cienega Music Co. v. ZZ Top
See Corcoran v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 121 F.2d 572, 573-74 (9th Cir.) (records treated like piano rolls), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
La Cienega Music Co. v. ZZ Top
See Corcoran v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 121 F.2d 572, 573-74 (9th Cir.) (records treated like piano rolls), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
La Cienega Music Company v. Zz Top
See Corcoran v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 121 F.2d 572, 573-74 (9th Cir.) (records treated like piano rolls), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
McNally v. United States
(2×)
See nn. 1-5, supra. Discussing the peculiar facts of each of them would only confirm the observation that fraud is “as old as falsehood and as versable as human ingenuity.” Weiss v. United States, 122 F. 2d 675, 681 (CA5), cert. denied, 314 U. S. 687 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
(2×)
See Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 683 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ernest Malizia
See Nick v. United States, 122 F.2d 660, 674 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 302 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941); United States v. McNeil, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 3 , 433 F.2d 1109 (1969); United States v. Martinez, 446 F.2d 118, 119 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 944 , 92 S.Ct. 297 , 30 L.Ed.2d 259 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Gordon McGlamory
Thus, for example, it is established in this Circuit that such evidence “will be received for the purpose of showing knowledge, intent, motive, design or scheme where such element is an essential of the commission of the offense.” Ehrlich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 481, 484 ; see Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 675, 681-685 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Odis Warren Nolte
United States v. Johnson, 1946, 327 U.S. 106, 111 , 66 S.Ct. 464 , 90 L.Ed. 562 ; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 835, 837-838 ; Batsell v. United States, supra, 403 F.2d at 403 ; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 307, 308 ; Newman v. United States, supra, 238 F.2d at 862-863 ; Harrison v. United States, 5 Cir. 1951, 191 F.2d 874, 876 ; see Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir. 1941, 122 F.2d 675, 692 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Pittman and Annie Laura Pittman
Thus, for example, it is established in this Circuit that such evidence “will be received for the purpose of showing knowledge, intent, motive, design or scheme where such element is an essential of the commission of the offense.” Ehrlich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 481, 484 ; see Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 675, 681-685 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Benjamin Pittman and Annie Laura Pittman, No. 29868 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409
Thus, for example, it is established in this Circuit that such evidence 'will be received for the purpose of showing knowledge, intent, motive, design or scheme where such element is an essential of the commission of the offense.' Ehrlich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 481, 484 ; see Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 675, 681-685 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Caci
See Nick v. United States, 122 F.2d 660, 673 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 302 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941), cited with approval in United States v. Varlack, 225 F.2d 665, 672 (2d Cir. 1955).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Caci
See Nick v. United States, 122 F.2d 660, 673 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 302 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941), cited with approval in United States v. Varlack, 225 F.2d 665, 672 (2d Cir. 1955).
cited
Cited "see"
Hal David Condrey v. United States
See Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir., 122 F.2d 675 , cert. denied 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gramatan-Sullivan, Inc. v. Koslow
See Wickes Boiler Co., Inc., v. Godfrey-Keeler Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 1940, 116 F.2d 842 , reversed on rehearing, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 415 , certiorari denied 1941, 314 U.S. 686 , 62 S.Ct. 297 , 86 L.Ed. 549 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co.
See Nick v. United States, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 660, 674 , 138 A.L.R. 791 , certiorari denied 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 302 , 86 L.Ed. 550 ; also St.
discussed
Cited "see"
Burnett v. United States
See Weiss v. United States, 5 Cir., 122 F.2d 675 , certiorari denied 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 ; Prisament v. United States, 5 Cir., 96 F.2d 865 ; Luke v. United States, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 711 , certiorari denied 299 U.S. 542 , 57 S.Ct. 45 , 81 L.Ed. 399 ; Chambers v. Anderson, 6 Cir., 58 F.2d 151 ; Yeates v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F. 60 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Choice Feed Inc. v. Montierth
It is difficult to define; there is no absolute rule as to what facts constituted [sic] fraud; and the law does not provide one ‘lest knavish ingenuity may avoid it.’ Massey Ferguson, Inc. v. Bent Equipment Company, 283 F.2d 12, 15 (5th Cir. 1960). ‘[T]he law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versable as human ingenuity.’ Id.’ Tusch Enterprises v. Coffin, 113 Idaho 37 , 41 n.1, 740 P.2d 1022 , 1026 n.1 (1987); see also Weiss v. U.S., 122 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard Daniel Freeman, Robert Temp and Alaine Carter Temp, Defendants
See also Weiss v. United States, 120 F.2d 472, 475 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941); United States v. Knippenberg, 502 F.2d 1056, 1061 (7th Cir. 1974) (mail fraud and interstate transportation of fraudulently taken property).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Eddie Turquitt, A/K/A Isom Edward Turquitt, A/K/A Edward Isom Turquitt
(2×)
See also Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 , 62 S.Ct. 300 , 86 L.Ed. 550 (1942).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Selby v. Ford Motor Company
Where the bankrupt is in possession of property impressed with a valid trust, the trustee holds such property subject to the interest of the trust beneficiaries and not for distribution to creditors of the bankrupt’s estate. 4A Collier j[70.25[l], at 339-40, 348.1; see, e. g., Wickes Boiler Co. v. Godfrey-Keeler Co., 116 F.2d 842 (2d Cir. 1940), mod. on rehearing, 121 F.2d 415 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 686 , 62 S.Ct. 297 , 86 L.Ed. 549 (1941) (provision of New York Lien Law impressing a trust upon funds received by contractor for benefit of subcontractor); In re Heintzelman Construction Co., …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maytag Company
v.
Apex Electrical Manufacturing Co.
v.
Apex Electrical Manufacturing Co.
No. 703.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 17, 1941.
Messrs. Wallace R. Lane and Benton Baker for petitioners. Messrs. F. 0. Richey and H. F. McNenny for respondent.
Cited by 19 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (4)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.