No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
St. Elmo HAWKINS, Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Chrysler Motors Corporation, and George R. Jones, T/A Beale and Jones, Appellees
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Chrysler Motors Corporation, and George R. Jones, T/A Beale and Jones, Appellees
13955.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 21, 1970.
Published opinion
John Douglas Clark and Alfred W. Trueax, Arlington, Va., for appellant., Preston C. King, Jr., Washington, D. C. (John T. Hazel, Jr., Fairfax, Va., and James C. Gregg, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee George R. Jones., Warren E. Finken, Detroit, Mich. (George E. Frost, William A. Schuetz, Detroit, Mich., Charles R. Engle, William R. Perlik, and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee General Motors Corp., Don K. Harness, Detroit, Mich. (Harness, Dickey & Pierce, Detroit, Mich., William A. Moncure and Richard, Mon-cure & Whitehead, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee Chrysler Motors Corp.
Sobeloff, Bryan, Craven.
Published
PER CURIAM:
St. Elmo Hawkins has sued his former patent attorney, General Motors Corporation and Chrysler Corporation for misappropriation of an invention. The trial judge afforded plaintiff every opportunity to prove his allegations, but Hawkins was able to demonstrate neither the existence of a conspiracy nor actionable negligence on the part of the attorney. Finding no error in the District Court’s disposition of this case, the judgment is
Affirmed.