1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 26 F.Supp.
  5. 26 F.Supp. 41 (1939)
 

BASEVI v. EDWARD O'TOOLE CO.

26 F.Supp. 41 (1939)

BASEVI v. EDWARD O'TOOLE CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

As Amended January 17, 1939.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frank, Weil & Strouse, of New York City (Samuel F. Frank, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Morgan, Finnegan & Durham, of New York City (George B. Finnegan, Jr., and Hobart N. Durham, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

My judgment is for the defendant herein, and it may have a decree dismissing the complaint, with full costs which will include all taxable disbursements, but will not include any attorney's fee.

I. My subject matter jurisdiction is based on the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.

II. In view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court on April 25, 1938, in Interstate Circuit, Inc., et al. v. United States,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases