From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 14, 1956
239 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1956)

Opinion

No. 105, Docket 24213.

Argued December 12, 1956.

Decided December 14, 1956.

Francis P. Keiper, Syracuse, N.Y., Hancock, Dorr, Ryan Shove, Syracuse, N.Y., for defendant-appellee.

Frank H. Marks, and Lederer, Livingston, Kahn Adsit, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, Harry Price, New York City, of counsel.

Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.


This is a suit which joined with a claim of patent infringement a claim of unfair competition. The latter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, there being no diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleges sufficient interrelation between the two claims to establish federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(b), as interpreted in Maternally Yours, Inc., v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc., 2 Cir., 234 F.2d 538, 544, which was decided subsequently to the judgment on appeal.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 14, 1956
239 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1956)
Case details for

Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co.

Case Details

Full title:Giles E. BULLOCK and The E.C. Brown Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 14, 1956

Citations

239 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1956)

Citing Cases

Progressive Engineering, Inc. v. Machinecraft, Inc.

That subsection, more firmly establishing the theory of pendent jurisdiction announced in Hurn v. Oursler,…

Preformed Line Products Co. v. Fanner Mfg. Co.

" Plaintiff relies on Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co., 239 F.2d 170 (2 Cir.), which also involved claims of…