This case involved the United States seeking forfeiture of a 1940 Packard coupe under a 1939 federal statute that mandates seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to transport counterfeit coins. The claimants were the registered owner, Concetta Santaniello, and Seaboard Commercial Corporation, which held a lien on the vehicle after financing its purchase. The court found that the car had been used by the owner's husband to transport counterfeit coins, that the vehicle was lawfully possessed at the time, and that neither claimant qualified for the statutory exemption protecting innocent owners when possession was unlawfully obtained. The court concluded that the forfeiture was required regardless of the claimants' innocence, as the proceeding was in rem against the vehicle itself, and directed judgment for the United States.
In this wrongful death action under Massachusetts law arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant sought to depose the plaintiff's retained expert physician about his already-formed opinion on causation and to compel answers without paying an expert fee beyond statutory witness fees. The court denied the motion to order the expert to testify without additional compensation and to bar the plaintiff from advising the expert against answering. The decision rested on the principle that while courts possess discretionary authority to require an expert to state a pre-existing opinion, an expert hired by one party should not be compelled to furnish that opinion to the opposing party simply upon an offer of payment, as the expert may properly decline such engagement.
This case involved antitrust claims under federal law by an Oklahoma resident, as assignee of rights from motion picture theater operators, seeking treble damages from film production and distribution companies. The defendants raised the statute of limitations in their answers, leading to motions to resolve that defense before addressing extensive interrogatories, requests for admissions, and document production. The court explained that the applicable limitations period would be drawn from Massachusetts law (six years) with possible borrowing from shorter Oklahoma periods via the state's borrowing statute, and noted a federal provision suspending the period during related government actions. It ordered the limitations defense to be heard first to avoid unnecessary discovery, denied motions to strike or compel responses to admission requests, and deferred rulings on other interrogatory objections.
This case involves a dispute between competing manufacturers of pinking machines, where the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that two patents owned by the defendant (U.S. Patent No. 1,984,224 and U.S. Design Patent No. 112,121) were invalid and not infringed by the plaintiff's machines, along with claims of unfair competition; the defendant filed a counterclaim alleging infringement and unfair competition by the plaintiff. The court, after reviewing evidence on the patents' features such as the integral casting of parts, spring mechanisms, and mounting clamps, found the asserted claims of the utility patent invalid for lack of invention over prior art and the design patent not infringed, while determining that markings like "FP" on the machines did not create consumer confusion or secondary meaning. On the unfair competition claims, the court concluded there was no evidence of fraud or deception likely to mislead ordinary purchasers, given the machines' distinct appearances and clear manufacturer labeling. The court therefore entered judgment declaring the relevant patent claims invalid or not infringed, denied relief on unfair competition for both sides, and dismissed the counterclaim.
This case involved claims by the widows and administratrices of two crew members who drowned after being swept overboard from the fishing vessel Sankaty Head in 1938. The plaintiffs sued the vessel's owner for negligence causing death and conscious suffering, and more than six months after receiving notice of the claims, the defendant asserted in its answers a defense of limited liability under federal maritime statutes, arguing the losses occurred without its privity or knowledge. The parties stipulated to damages amounts subject to resolution of the limitation issue. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, holding that the 1936 amendment to 46 U.S.C. § 185, which permits an owner to petition for limitation within six months, did not eliminate the longstanding right to raise limitation of liability as a defense in an answer, as supported by the statute's general terms and prior precedent like The Scotland.
This case concerned claims of copyright infringement by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and the owners of two songs, "Christopher Columbus" and "My Blue Heaven," against defendant John J. Hurley. The plaintiffs alleged that the songs were performed without a license at a public dance hall called the "Moorish Castle" in Revere, Massachusetts, where Hurley managed operations, hired the orchestra, and held the lease. The court held the copyrights valid and found that Hurley was liable for the unauthorized public performances for profit. It reasoned that a person who hires an orchestra for such performances bears responsibility even without selecting the program, and that Hurley's control over the premises, his statements identifying the hall as his place, and his role in engaging musicians made him accountable rather than merely an agent for the operating partnership. The court awarded injunctive relief, statutory damages of $250 per song, and costs.
