Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.
279 F.2d 337
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1960-06-09
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment below on Judge Dimock’s thorough analysis of the facts and his discussion of the relevant principles and authorities set forth in his opinion reported at 177 F.Supp. 291 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959). An examination of the exhibits fully supports Judge Dimock’s finding that all of the features of the plaintiff’s aluminum casement window which the defendant is alleged to have appro*338priated, were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff’s window which was available on the open market. Affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Speciner v. Reynolds Metals Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
SPECINER v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY,279 F.2d 337(2nd Cir. 1960)
I. Jonas SPECINER, Trustee in Bankruptcy of ABC Steel Equipment Co., Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 325, Docket 26061.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued May 6, 1960.
Decided June 9, 1960.
Walter C. Lundgren, New York City (John P. Crilly and Lundgren, Lincoln McDaniel, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Circuit Judge, and JAMESON, District Judge.fn*
Affirmed.
- Sitting by designation. ↩