Supreme Court· 2/20/1961
Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.
Citations
- 365 U.S. 260
- 81 S. Ct. 557
- 5 L. Ed. 2d 546
- 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2129
- 128 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 305
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that this type of issue preclusion applied against a nonparty manufacturer that, pursuant to its contract of sale, defended and bore the expense of a patent infringement suit against the purchaser of its product
- the requirement of venue is a specific and unambiguous one which should not be liberally construed
- “[t]he requirement of venue is specific and unambiguous; it is not one of those vague principles which, in the interest of some overriding policy, is to be given a liberal construction”
- “The requirement of venue is specific and unambiguous; it is not one of those vague principles which, in the interest of some overriding policy, is to be given a ‘liberal’ construction.”
- “The requirement of venue is specific and unambiguous; it is not one of those vague principles which, in the interest of some overriding policy, is to be given a ‘liberal’ construction.”
- “[T]he Supreme Court has cautioned against a broad reading of the venue statute.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
111 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1979-02-22· cited 3,633×
- Taylor v. SturgellSupreme Court· 2008-06-12· cited 2,529×
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 2,097×
- St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationTenth Circuit· 1979-09-19· cited 536×
- Hohn v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1998-06-22· cited 439×
- In Re: Cray Inc.Federal Circuit· 2017-09-21· cited 195×
- Codex Corporation and Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Milgo Electronic Corporation and International Communications CorporationFirst Circuit· 1977-04-29· cited 157×
- In Re Cordis CorporationFederal Circuit· 1985-07-10· cited 140×
- George W. Jurgens and Margaret M. Jurgens v. Cbk, Ltd. And Cbk, Ltd., Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsFederal Circuit· 1996-06-20· cited 113×
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Supreme Court· 1966-03-23· cited 96×
- Smith v. JenkinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1989-07-06· cited 79×
- In Re GOOGLE LLCFederal Circuit· 2020-02-13· cited 73×
- Knapp-Monarch Co. v. Casco Products Corp. And E.A. Langenfeld Associates, Ltd.Seventh Circuit· 1965-03-23· cited 54×
- Alcee L. Hastings, Honorable U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida v. Judicial Conference of the U.S.D.C. Circuit· 1987-09-15· cited 51×
- In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust LitigationE.D. New York· 2003-05-20· cited 50×
- Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros.Seventh Circuit· 1969-12-30· cited 48×
- Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc.E.D. Virginia· 2017-09-28· cited 43×
- Dentsply International, Inc. v. Kerr Manufacturing Co.D. Delaware· 1999-04-29· cited 42×
- State v. WoodSuperior Court of Delaware· 1961-07-21· cited 36×
- Conesco Industries, Ltd. A New Jersey Corporation v. Conforti and Eisele, Inc., D. C. A District of Columbia CorporationD.C. Circuit· 1980-04-17· cited 34×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court· 1939-11-22· cited 770×
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court· 1957-04-29· cited 584×
- Olberding v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court· 1953-11-09· cited 258×
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court· 1942-03-09· cited 173×
- Souffront v. La Compagnie Des Sucreries De Porto RicoSupreme Court· 1910-05-16· cited 150×
- G. & C. Merriam Co. v. SaalfieldSupreme Court· 1916-04-17· cited 85×
Other cases named Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.