Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

McCullough v. Cosgrave

McCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634 (1940)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-04-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • a federal judge persisted in referring an entire patent case to a special master for resolution of facts, law and for proposals of recommended findings, mandamus issued to protect the parties’ rights to a judicial forum

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McCullough v. Cosgrave. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
43 opinions
Per Curiam:

The motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is granted, and the *635 return to the order to show cause is treated as an answer to the petition. The District Judge is directed to vacate the order dated January 15, 1940, in the cases of Kammerer Corporation and Baash-Ross Tool Company v. Ira J. McCullough et al., and Ira J. McCullough v. Baash-Ross Tool Company and Kammerer Corporation, referring these cases to a Master for trial. It is further ordered that the trial of these cases be had by the District Court in due course without postponement of the trial to that of other cases not entitled to a preference, but with such arrangement as to the particular Judge who shall conduct the trial as may be consistent with the court’s convenience." Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 (b); Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Co. v. James, 272 U. S. 701.

Mr. Ford W. Harris for petitioners. Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond for respondent.