The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
Moreat page 324, 20 L. Ed. 581, quoting with approval from Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. Spear Ripley, 2 Sandf. (U.S.D.C.E.D.Pa.1934), 24 Trade Mark Rep. 48) for certainly the representation of products in use by the sort of persons who use them is one of the commonest devices in all advertising.
, United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. Hence it says, in the event of a finding of coercion, it would follow as a matter of law that Edward was innocent of any dishonest fraudulent or criminal act with the result that its loss was clearly covered by Insuring Agreement II of the policy.
v., MURCHIE. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439, a case which was later overruled in Farmers Loan Trust Co. v. State of Minnesota, 1930, 280 U.S. 204, 50 S. Ct. The taxpayer indeed concedes in the present case that Congress has power to impose an estate tax in circumstances like the present.
, 8, The first intimation by any one that the vessels were approaching one another came when the look-out on the Gertrude Parker heard one of the Skilligolee's fog signals. Furthermore the engine could not be reversed from the pilot house, but could only be reversed in the engine room.
178 F.2d 888, PARKERv.GORDON., No. 4431., United States Court of Appeals First Circuit., December 22, 1949., Allan Roy Kingston, Boston, Mass. (Hubert W. Coffin, Christopher J. Muldoon, Jr., and Hale, Sanderson, Byrnes Morton, Boston, Mass., with him on brief) for appellant., Willis A. Downs
178 F.2d 325, 16 A.L.R., 17, Had the notes in the case at bar read 'with interest thereon at the rate of three (3%) per cent from the date hereof', then, under the decisions of the Massachusetts courts the interest rate of three per cent would have continued to be the rate after maturity.
177 F.2d 529 (1949), MANOSKY et al. Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and also failed to state facts giving this court jurisdiction of the action. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451;
, 176 F.2d 13. so it is difficult to understand why the federal district courts should be deemed to lack jurisdiction in such a case, even though the lower courts may be bound to adjudicate adversely to the federal claim in deference to controlling authority not yet overruled by the Supreme Court.
177 F.2d 259 (1949), MATHEY, v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE., WOODBURY, Circuit Judge. Therefore an award of damages in patent litigation is ordinarily an award of compensation for gains or profits lost by the patent owner and hence is taxable to him as income in the year received.
and then it alleges that beginning in 1935 it adopted and used, and since that date has continuously to the present time used, the unique trade name Food Fair in connection with the conduct by it and by its subsidiary corporations of said retail food supermarkets. 586, 82 L. Ed. 845.
175 F.2d 504 (1949), WHITIN MACHINE WORKS, v., UNITED STATES.
176 F.2d 646 (1949), LEWIS et al. The decision was reached to transfer the operating assets of the chemical manufacturing business to a new corporation in exchange for its stock and to distribute this stock, together with the old company's liquid assets, in liquidation of the old company.
It is true, as the government points out in a supplemental memorandum, that the Supreme Court expressly reserved judgment as to claims of servicemen for injuries resulting from accidents incident to their service, citing, by way of illustration, Jefferson v. United States, D.C.Md.1948, 77 F. Supp.
Furthermore, § 18(e) makes the RFC's power to purchase surplus property for resale subject to regulations of the WAA, and § 5 of the aforementioned WAA Regulation No. 2, Order No. 6, provides: Purchases by Reconstruction Finance Corporation shall be made at the fair value of the property * * *.
116, 83 L. Ed. 81. But as we read the license agreement in the case at bar, Automatic would not break the agreement by manufacturing and selling for unrestricted use radio apparatus which in fact does not embody any of the inventions covered by Hazeltine's patents. Co. v. Owsley, C.C.
Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Junior, Ruth and Ednamarie have claimed that, under the terms of the insurance policy, the plaintiff is obligated to pay any judgments against Junior or Willys-Overland which may be rendered in the pending damage suit, which liability this plaintiff denies.
172 F.2d 737 (1949), STATE FARM MUT., MAGRUDER, Chief Judge., Morris Gray and State Farm Mutual Liability Insurance Company, on August 19, 1947, filed a complaint in the court below against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, 60 Stat. 842, 61 Stat. 722, 28 U.S.C.A.
An order will therefore be entered denying the Union's petition for review. these were intended to cover basic conditions of employment which at that time were commonly the subject of collective bargaining, but not welfare activities, such as health and accident insurance, which were not;
, 1931, 50 F.2d 371, a cash-basis taxpayer had taken a deduction in her income tax return for the year 1922 on account of payment in that year of a deficiency in estate taxes, and interest thereon. 364, 88 L. Ed. 420, and Security Flour Mills Co. v. Commissioner, 1944, 321 U.S. 281, 64 S. Ct.
, MARKS, v., UNITED STATES., Heard March 2, 1949., The Government's case rests in large measure upon the testimony of one Shulman, a former accomplice of the defendants, who turned state's evidence. that around twelve o'clock when she returned her bank statement was missing from her mail box;
