Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find the right lawyer for your legal problem

Faster, Smarter and More Accurate

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

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:

More
Find Case Laws by Filters
Sort byYou can sort data by applying different sort criteria
Most Lastest
Most Earliest
The Last Three Years
Noteman v. Welch, 3491 (1939)

108 F.2d 206 (1939), NOTEMAN et al. 96, 74 L. Ed. 385., We do not say, in concluding on this branch of the case, that all payments by borrowers from licensed personal finance companies are necessarily interest under the Massachusetts Small Loans law, or under Section 351 of the Revenue Act of 1934.

# 1
Green Valley Creamery v. United States, 3461-3465 (1939)

A handler who has more than the market average of Class II milk sales during a particular delivery period will have to pay to his producers at the blended price an amount greater than the total amount charged to him as the use value of the milk he has received from producers during that period.

# 2
National Biscuit Co. v. Crown Baking Co., 3442 (1939)

It is urged by the plaintiff, however, that the delivery of the machine prior to March 10, 1921, was purely for experimental purposes, but as to this claim the master expressly found that:, There was no occasion to lease this machine to the Atlantic Co. for experimental purposes.

# 3
Providence Journal Co. v. Broderick, 3429 (1939)

, The Company paid for the buildings and land $535, 000., Counsel for plaintiff points to the value allocated to these buildings when purchased and says that the court must not look beyond the consideration involved in the purchase and the extinction of value when the buildings were demolished.

# 4
Renaud Sales Co. v. Davis, 3425, 3426 (1939)

, BREWSTER, District Judge., First, as to the plaintiff's assignment: The court found that Renaud et Cie of America, as sole representative in the United States selling the products of Renaud-Paris-1817, S. A., had succeeded in establishing for Renaud perfumes a well-defined reputation.

# 5
United States v. Proprietors of Social Law Library, 3412 (1939)

102 F.2d 481 (1939), UNITED STATES, v., PROPRIETORS OF SOCIAL LAW LIBRARY.] Exemptions from tax on corporations. Making such properties productive to the end that the income may be thus used does not alter or enlarge the purposes for which the corporation is created and conducted.

# 6
Welch v. Davidson, 3408 (1939)

, If the trust in the Guggenheim case had been irrevocable at the time it was created there can be no doubt that the court would have held that a transfer of a present interest in the nature of a gift passed to the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the trust;

# 7
Malloy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 3388 (1939)

page 609, 81 L. Ed. 732), where the court was construing an incontestability clause similar to that in the Ness case, supra, stated that: Examination of the words relied upon to show an exception to the incontestability clause of the policy discloses ample cause for doubt concerning their meaning.

# 8
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev., 3386 (1939)

Subject to only minor variations, the amounts so allocated accord with the published premium rates of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada for the issue of such life annuity and life insurance contracts respectively, issued in each instance to a male person of the age of the decedent.

# 9
National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford D. Ass'n, 3343 (1939)

, The method of doing business in this case is for a customer, known in the trade as a converter, who purchases gray goods where he pleases, at his own expense, without any direction from the respondent, to ship the goods to the respondent's plant for processing or finishing, as it is called.

# 10
Grove Laboratories v. Brewer & Co., 3316, 3317 (1939)

that such a mark is not merely descriptive but one of the character that the first sentence of Section 5 provides should not be refused registration, for, having come to denote origin, it had come also to distinguish the goods of the plaintiff from goods of others of the same class.

# 11

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer