Triplett v. Lowell
| Citation | 80 L.Ed. 402,296 U.S. 570,56 S.Ct. 306 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 388,388 |
| Parties | A. G. TRIPLETT et al., petitioners, v. Percival D. LOWELL |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., of New York City, and Cook & Markell, of Baltimore, Md., for petitioners.
Messrs. Clifton V. Edwards, of New York City, Gaylord Lee Clark, of Baltimore, Md., and John B. Brady, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
For opinion below, see 77 F.(2d) 556.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It is ordered that the petition for rehearing in this case be, and it hereby is, granted. The order heretofore entered on October 14, 1935, denying the petition for writ of certiorari in this case is vacated, and it is ordered that the petition for writ of certiorari be, and the same hereby is granted. The case is assigned for argument immediately following No. 590.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triplett v. Lowell Mantle Lamp Co of America v. Aluminum Products Co
...Ill., for Aluminum Products Co. Mr. Justice STONE, deli ered the opinion of the Court. In No. 388 certiorari was granted, 296 U.S. 570, 56 S.Ct. 306, 80 L.Ed. 402, to resolve questions as to the scope and effect of the disclaimer statute, Rev.St. §§ 4917, 4922, 35 U.S.C. §§ 65, 71 (35 U.S.C......
- In re Maidman
- Lynch v. Oregon Lumber Co., 9116.
-
Callaghan v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation Stitt v. Same
...for respondent. Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. Nos. 539, 540. In these cases certiorari was granted, 296 U.S. 570, 56 S.Ct. 307, 80 L.Ed. 402, because of the public impo tance of the questions involved, to review the interpretation by the Court of Appeals for the Seco......