green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
31.3 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1997 ·
…a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree
✓
cited 6× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 ·
…a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor....
✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 ·
…a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1939 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1939
1982
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mark Henderson v. Ford Motor Company
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a party may not appeal from a judg- ment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gordon Properties, LLC v. First Owners Ass'n (In Re Gordon Properties, LLC)
(3×)
a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cohen v. United States
(6×)
a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
52 soc.sec.rep.ser. 800, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 15694b, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1589, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3067 Sandra K. Forney v. Shirley S. Chater, Secretary, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
(3×)
a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Forney v. Chater
(3×)
a party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re MCFADDEN
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul Guertin
Cir. 2023) (quoting Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anatol Zukerman v. USPS
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Paul J. DiPietro
We consider such orders to lack the statutorily requisite finality. 12 In addition, even where a district court has entered a “final judgment” on an appeal 13 from a bankruptcy court decision, “[i]t is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that ‘[a] 14 party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a 15 review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.’” In re 16 O’Brien, 184 F.3d 140, 141 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts 17 Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Larry Chambers and Abie Wolf v. Gary Starr and Bonnie Starr
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antrim Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Bio-Pharm, Inc.
Even if these arguments had merit, “[i]t is well established that a party cannot appeal an issue it won at trial.” See Estate of Kan- ter v. Comm’r, 432 F. App’x 618 , 619–20 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antrim Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Bio-Pharm, Inc.
Even if these arguments had merit, “[i]t is well established that a party cannot appeal an issue it won at trial.” See Estate of Kan- ter v. Comm’r, 432 F. App’x 618 , 619–20 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Flores, Antonio R.
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)). 4 Armstrong v. State, 805 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Jim Slemons Hawaii, Inc.
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 24 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939); see also N.Y.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Wendy Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 242 , 59 S.Ct. at 860-61 (footnotes omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Burton W. v. Cir
Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Conwill, IV v. Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., E
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 241-43, 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Burton W. Kanter, De v. CIR
Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Viking Yacht Co Inc v. Composites One LLC
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 *206 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
B-Line, LLC v. Gerald Wingerter
In Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 241-42 (1939), a district court found that a patent was valid but that the plaintiff had failed to prove infringement.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Northshore Mining Co.
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hofit Jenkins v. Avraham Jenkins
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Russel Hoggarth v. Kip Kaler
“A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holly Sells v. Michael Porter
Sells May Not Appeal a Judgment in Her Favor “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co. 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jean Alexander v. L'Oreal USA Inc
More generally, the Supreme Court has held that a prevailing party may appeal “for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” Elec. 25 Fitting Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939); see also Deposit Guar.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Company
Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co. , 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Airtouch Paging v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Us West, Inc., Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc., Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C., Inc., Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc., New York Telephone Company & New England Telephone & Telegraph Company & Sbc Communications, Inc., Intervenors
For this reason, a party generally lacks standing to appeal from "'a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.'" In re O'Brien, 184 F.3d 140, 141 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)); Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 137 F.3d 640 , 648-49 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Asarco, Incorporated v. Secretary of Labor, and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
"A party may not appeal from a judgment or decision in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree." Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Concrete Holding Co. v. James P. Davis
Co., 992 F.2d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Forney v. Apfel
It pointed out that a “party normally may not appeal [a] decision in its favor.” Ibid, (citing Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U. S. 241, 242 (1939)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Concerned Citizens of Cohocton Valley, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
The Supreme Court reversed because the adverse finding (validity of one claim of the patent) was formally set forth in the District Court’s decree. 307 U.S. at 242 , 59 S.Ct. at 860.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Concerned Citizens of Cohocton Valley, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Michael Zagata, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Jeffrey J. Sama, Deputy Permit Administrator of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, J. Makowski Associates, Inc., Avoca Natural Gas Storage v. Concerned Citizens of Cohocton Valley, Inc.
The Supreme Court reversed because the adverse finding (validity of one claim of the patent) was formally set forth in the District Court's decree. 307 U.S. at 242 , 59 S.Ct. at 860.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Affiliated Ute Citizens of State of Utah v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation
Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc.
(2×)
We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, as we have held this Court has, to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree." Electrical Fittings, 307 U. S., at 242 (footnotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper
(2×)
We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, as we have held this court has, to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree." 307 U. S., at 242 (footnotes omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Liberty Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939); McCafferty v. Centerior Serv.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fletcher Ex Rel. Fletcher
(2×)
See 307 U.S. at 241-42 , 59 S.Ct. 860 .
discussed
Cited "see"
O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Serv.
(2×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , (1939). 2.
examined
Cited "see"
O & S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA (In re O & S Trucking, Inc.)
(3×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939). 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
(2×)
See id. at 242 , 59 S.Ct. at 860-61 (prevailing party in patent dispute entitled to appeal collateral ruling on the validity of a patent claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elkin v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
(2×)
See Elect'l Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. *25 241, 242, 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939); W.W.
examined
Cited "see"
National Presto Industries, Inc. v. Dazey Corporation
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 , 59 S.Ct. 860, 860-61 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939) (prevailing party had standing to appeal where district court found no infringement, but improperly adjudged the patent valid); see also HCA Health Servs. of Va. v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
examined
Cited "see"
Hca Health Services of Virginia, T/a Henrico Doctors' Hospital Richmond Community Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation Richmond Eye and Ear Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation Metlife Healthcare Management Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Hca Health Services of Virginia, T/a Henrico Doctors' Hospital Richmond Community Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation Richmond Eye and Ear Hospital, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation Metlife Healthcare Management Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
(3×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 , 59 S.Ct. 860, 861 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939) (appeal by prevailing party proper because, after ruling there had been no patent infringement, district court erroneously ruled on validity of patent); Department of Defense, Office of Dependent Sch. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 879 F.2d 1220, 1221-22 (4th Cir.1989) (Department of Defense, Office of Dependent Schools (DODDS) was "aggrieved" for appeal purposes when FLRA decided in favor of DODDS in union's appeal of arbitration decision while also holding that the Act did not…
examined
Cited "see"
HCA Health Services v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
(3×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 , 59 S.Ct. 860, 861 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939) (appeal by prevailing party proper because, after ruling there had been no patent infringement, district court erroneously ruled on validity of patent); Department of Defense, Office of Dependent Sch. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 879 F.2d 1220, 1221-22 (4th Cir.1989) (Department of Defense, Office of Dependent Schools (DODDS) was "aggrieved” for appeal purposes when FLRA decided in favor of DODDS in union’s appeal of arbitration decision while also holding that the Act did…
examined
Cited "see"
Joseph R. Kapp v. National Football League, an Unincorporated Association, Joseph R. Kapp v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc., Joseph R. Kapp v. National Football League, an Unincorporated Association
(3×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939); Lindheimer v. Illinois Tel.
examined
Cited "see"
Kapp v. National Football League
(3×)
See Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939); Lindheimer v. Illinois Tel.
examined
Cited "see"
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Filtrol Corporation and Texaco Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation v. Filtrol Corporation and Texaco Inc.
(3×)
Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Labs, supra, n. 3; see Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 1939, 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 .” In answer to the above authorities, Mobil cites Neff Instrument Corporation v. Cohu Electronics, Inc. (9 Cir. 1961) 298 F.2d 82 ; American Technical Machine Corp. v. Caparotta (2 Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d 557 , cert. denied 382 U.S. 842 , 86 S.Ct. 65 , 15 L.Ed.2d 83 (1965); Marston v. J.
cited
Cited "see"
Raymond L. Hall, and Quaker City Industries, Inc., a Corporation of New York v. U. S. Fiber & Plastics Corporation, a Corporation of New Jersey
See Electrical Fittings Corp., supra, 307 U. S. p. 242, 59 S.Ct. 860 .
examined
Cited "see"
M. O. S. Corporation v. John I. Haas Co., Inc.
(3×)
Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Labs, supra, n. 3; see Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 1939, 307 U.S. 241 , 59 S.Ct. 860 , 83 L.Ed. 1263 . 7 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. Et Al.
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CO. Et Al.
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CO. Et Al.
582.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 22, 1939.
Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., with whom Mr. Lloyd H. Crews was on the brief, for petitioners., Mr. George White field Betts, Jr., with whom Messrs. William Bohleber and Francis II. Fassett were on the brief, for respondents.
Roberts.
Cited by 277 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a suit in equity by the respondents for alleged infringement of a patent. . The District Court held claim[*242] 1 valid but not infringed and claim 2 invalid. [1] Instead of dismissing the bill without more, it entered a decree adjudging claim 1 valid but dismissing the bill for failure to prove infringement.
The respondents did not appeal, but filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer of claim 2. The petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals from so much of the decree as adjudicated claim 1 valid. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had been awarded all the relief to which they were entitled, the litigation having finally terminated in their favor. [2] The court was of opinion that the decree would not bind the petitioners in subsequent suits on the issue of the validity of claim 1.
We granted certiorari because of an alleged conflict of decision. [3] A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of . findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree. [4] But here the decree itself purports to adjudge the validity of claim 1, and though the adjudication was immaterial to the disposition of the cause, it stands as an adjudication of one of the issues litigated. We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, [5] as we have held this court has, [6] to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree.
[*243] The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to entertain the appeal and direct the District Court to reform its decree in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Reversed.
3
See Oliver-Sherwood Co. v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp., 95 F. 2d 70, 71.
4
Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 292 U. S. 151, 176.
5
See 28 U. S. C. § 225.
6
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386; William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, ante, p. 171.