1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 96 F.Supp.
  5. 96 F.Supp. 1021 (1951)
 

HOOK v. HOOK & ACKERMAN

Civ. No. 9020.

96 F.Supp. 1021 (1951)

HOOK v. HOOK & ACKERMAN, Inc.

District Court of the United States W. D. Pennsylvania.

April 25, 1951.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

George L. Eynon (Shoemaker & Eynon), Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Charles L. Cunningham, (Stonecipher & Cunningham), Pittsburgh, Pa., and Harry Price, New York City, for defendant.

BURNS, District Judge.

The complaint at bar, originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, seeks an accounting and the payment of royalties alleged to be due under a license agreement. Although the complaint identifies plaintiff only as a "resident" of Pennsylvania, it appears clear that there is no diversity of citizenship. Neither party can question the validity of the patent in this case. Consequently, although other actions filed in this Court...

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