From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Myers

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 14, 1964
228 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

Summary

noting that a shop right holder has no right to sue for patent infringement nor join with the licensor in bringing an infringement action

Summary of this case from Marley Co. v. FE Petro, Inc.

Opinion

Misc. 2698.

April 14, 1964.

Henry N. Horne, in pro per.


From the allegations of this habeas corpus petition, it appears that relator in 1959 was tried and convicted of the crimes of conspiracy, larceny and receiving stolen goods. He was sentenced to a maximum prison term of five years but in 1960 was released on parole. While on parole it appears that relator was arrested and convicted of another crime.

Relator now complains of the action of the Parole Board in revoking his parole and redating the expiration date of his original sentence. He alleges that the statute authorizing the action by the Parole Board places him in "double jeopardy" and is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

There is no indication in relator's petition that these allegations have ever been presented to any state court. Accordingly the petition will be denied until relator demonstrates that he has exhausted his state remedies.


Summaries of

United States v. Myers

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 14, 1964
228 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

noting that a shop right holder has no right to sue for patent infringement nor join with the licensor in bringing an infringement action

Summary of this case from Marley Co. v. FE Petro, Inc.
Case details for

United States v. Myers

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Henry N. HORNE v. David N. MYERS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 14, 1964

Citations

228 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

Citing Cases

United States v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole

GRIM, District Judge. Relator, a state prisoner, on April 13, 1964, filed a habeas corpus petition in this…

Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein's Sons, Inc.

Practice of the invention by others may indeed cause him pecuniary loss, but it does him no legal injury."…