Crane Packing Co. v. Spitfire Tool & Mach. Co., 363 U.S. 820 (1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Crane Packing Co. v. Spitfire Tool & Mach. Co., 363 U.S. 820 (1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crane Packing Company v. Spitfire Tool & Machine Co. (ca7, 1960-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Crane Packing Company v. Spitfire Tool & Machine Co.
7th Cir. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See 80 S.Ct. 1259 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jones
Kan. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g. , People v. Caruso , 174 Cal. App. 2d 624 , 647, 345 P.2d 282 (1959), cert. denied , 363 U.S. 819 , 80 S. Ct. 1259 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1517 (1960) (finding no abuse of discretion where condition of probation required the defendant to 'remain out of the automobile business' even though the 'automobile business is the only one which he knows' in car dealership fraud case); State v. Fox , 22 Conn. App. 449 , 457, 577 A.2d 1111 (1990) ('[T]he special condition prohibiting the defendant from engaging in private real estate work during the period of probation was reasonably related to his rehabilit…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Henson v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., People v. Caruso, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 647 , 345 P.2d 282 (1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 819 , 80 S.Ct. 1259 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1517 (1960) (finding no abuse of discretion where condition of probation required the defendant to “remain out of the automobile business” even though the “automobile business is the only one which he knows” in car dealership fraud case); State v. Fox, 22 Conn.App. 449, 457 , 577 A.2d 1111 (1990) (“[T]he special condition prohibiting the defendant from engaging in private real estate work during the period of probation was reasonably related to his rehabil…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crane Packing Co.
v.
Spitfire Tool & Machine Co., Inc.
No. 940.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 13, 1960.
363 U.S. 820
Warren C. Horton, John R. Nicholson and Charles M. Nisen for petitioners. Clarence E. Threedy for respondent. James P. Hume, Robert C. Brown, Jr. and George E. Frost for the American Patent Law Association.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The motion of the American Patent Law Association for leave to file brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.