Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. A. H. Emery Company v. Marcan Products Corp.

    268 F. Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that drawings and blueprints of a machine are trade secrets

    The authorities in comparable situations indicate that the two claims asserted here are sufficiently related for jurisdictional purposes. Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., supra; Telechron, Inc. v. Parissi, 197 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1952); see Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc., 234 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1956); Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co., 239 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1956). It follows that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of both claims asserted in it.

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

    225 F. Supp. 762 (N.D. Ohio 1962)   Cited 11 times

    " Plaintiff relies on Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co., 239 F.2d 170 (2 Cir.), which also involved claims of patent infringement and unfair competition and in which it was held that the District Court had jurisdiction of the claim of unfair competition. In my opinion, the reasoning of Bullock is less persuasive than that of Hook v. Hook Ackerman, supra.

  3. Progressive Engineering, Inc. v. Machinecraft, Inc.

    169 F. Supp. 291 (D. Mass. 1959)   Cited 3 times

    That subsection, more firmly establishing the theory of pendent jurisdiction announced in Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 53 S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148, is now given hospitable treatment by most federal courts. Bullock v. Sears Roebuck Co., 2 Cir., 239 F.2d 170; Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, 2 Cir., 234 F.2d 538, 544; Darsyn Laboratories v. Lenox Laboratories, D.C.N.J., 120 F. Supp. 42, 53-54; Id., 3 Cir., 217 F.2d 648. Defendants counterclaimed.