Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 312 U.S. 654 (1941). · Go Syfert
Search
Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 312 U.S. 654 (1941). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
83 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 36 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Texon, Inc. (ca1, 1959-08-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942 1984 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Texon, Inc. (2×)
1st Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sehriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 1940, 311 U.S. 211 , 312 U.S. 654 , 61 S.Ct. 235 , 85 L.Ed. 132 .
discussed Cited "see" Zenith Radio Corp. v. Lehman (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 , 61 S.Ct. 235 , 85 L.Ed. 132 , opinion amended and rehearing denied, 312 U.S. 654 , 61 S.Ct. 235 ; Parke, Davis & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 571, 573 . .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schriber-Schroth Co.
v.
Cleveland Trust Co. Aberdeen Motor Supply Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. and F. E. Rowe Sales Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.
No. 9; No. 10; No. 11.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 3, 1941.
312 U.S. 654
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published

Ordered that the opinion in these eases be amended as follows:

1. Strike from the second complete paragraph, page 2, lines 5 and 6, the phrases “one of several claims” and “which the Court sustained”.

2. In line 18 of the same paragraph substitute the word “one” for the word “another”.

3. In the fourth line from the bottom of page 3 insert the words “without prejudice” before the word “of”.

4. Modify the third, fourth, and fifth lines from the bottom of the first complete paragraph on page 9 to read: “found the elements of the invention which it described but in which, absent the flexible web element, it found no invention. In view of such want of invention and of the prior art the only material difference between the amended and the allowed claims is the presence in the former of the flexible web element and, in consequence of the surrender of the former particularizing”.

The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand are denied.