green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Anne D. Nickola v. Kenneth Peterson, D/B/A Kaydee Products Company
See Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 .” VI.
discussed
Cited "see"
William Minor Deyerle and Orthopedic Equipment Company, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Wright Manufacturing Company and Frank O. Wright
(2×)
See Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 .' 440 F.2d at 81 . 49 Without reviewing in detail the District Court's findings of fact on the issue of obviousness, we point out that the District Judge found nothing in the prior art which immobilized a fracture against shearing and torsion forces while allowing for absorption at the fracture site in order to encourage early weight bearing and ambulation.
discussed
Cited "see"
Schnading Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., Inc.
See Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 .” 3 Appellant contends that the clearly erroneous standard is inapplicable to the extent that findings rest on documentary evidence.
cited
Cited "see"
Kolene Corporation, and Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v. Motor City Metal Treating, Inc.
See Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 .
cited
Cited "see"
Filterite Corp. v. Tate Engineering, Inc.
See Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406, 414 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Waldon, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Alexander Manufacturing Company and Amco International, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
See Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply Company, 6 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 406 , cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 which applied this principle in a patent ease and held there was no error in denying a jury trial on the question of obviousness even though it involves several factual inquiries. 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fireman's Fund American Insurance Company v. Boston Harbor Marina, Inc.
See American S. S. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 7 Cir. 1964, 333 F.2d 426, 430 , cert. denied, 379 U.S. 889 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 ; cf. Alcoa S. S. Co. v. Charles Ferran & Co., 5 Cir., 1967, 383 F.2d 46, 55 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v. Norton Company, Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Hadco Corporation,defendants-Appellees
See, e. g., Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406, 411 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 , on the one hand and Maytag Co. v. Murray Corp., 318 F.2d 79, 81 (6th Cir. 1963), on the other.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ajem Laboratories, Inc., and Centri-Spray Corporation v. C. M. Ladd Co., Inc., and Charles M. Ladd
See also Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing and Supply Company, 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888 , 85 S.Ct. 160 , 13 L.Ed.2d 93 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frankel, Guardian
v.
Vick
v.
Vick
No. 371.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 26, 1964.
Lipman Redman for petitioner. Perry S. Bechtle and Francis E. Shields for respondents.
Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.