Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc.

418 F.2d 571

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-09-29
Topic
general

ORDER On consideration of plaintiff-appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal and the briefs and records in this proceeding; and Noting that the District Judge’s Order, filed April 24, 1969, was a reference to a Special Master and specifically retained jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding, and hence was not a final order; and Further, noting that the order was not of the class of “judgments in civil actions for patent infringement which are final except for accounting” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (4), (1964), but rather was an interlocutory order in a contempt proceeding (see International Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, Ltd., 93 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1937)), Said motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. Rule 8, Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed American Saint Gobain Corporation v. Armstrong Glass Company, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
AMERICAN SAINT GOBAIN CORP. v. ARMSTRONG GLASS,418 F.2d 571(6th Cir. 1969)
AMERICAN SAINT GOBAIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMSTRONG GLASS
COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19657.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
September 29, 1969.
Edwin M. Luedeka, Paul E. Hodges, Knoxville, Tenn., on memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss, Ferdinand Powell, Jr., Epps, Powell, Weller, Taylor Miller, Johnson City, Tenn., for appellant.

Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris, Waddey Treadway, Ernest F. Smith, Kingsport, Tenn., on brief in support of motion to dismiss; Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor Adams, Robert J. Kadel, Berj A. Terzian, Satterlee, Warfield Stephens, New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
On consideration of plaintiff-appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal and the briefs and records in this proceeding; and

Noting that the District Judge's Order, filed April 24, 1969, was a reference to a Special Master and specifically retained jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding, and hence was not a final order; and

Further, noting that the order was not of the class of "judgments in civil actions for patent infringement which are final except for accounting" within the meaning of28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(4), (1964), but rather was an interlocutory order in a contempt proceeding (seeInternational Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, Ltd.,93 F.2d 437(2d Cir. 1937)),

Said motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. Rule 8, Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Page 572Page 661