Samuel Blanken & Co., Inc. v. Shannon & Luchs Company

SAMUEL BLANKEN & CO., Inc., Appellant, v. SHANNON & LUCHS COMPANY, Appellee

Samuel Blanken & Co. v. Shannon & Luchs Co., 371 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1966)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: December 1, 1966
Docket: No. 20060
Judges: Fahy, McGowan, Tamm
Citations: 371 F.2d 950125 U.S. App. D.C. 297

Cited by 41 2 descriptions by later courts Original from court

Opinion — Tamm

TAMM, Circuit Judge:

This appeal involves the same subject matter as Samuel Blanken & Co. v. Sigmund Goldblatt et al. (No. 20,014, Dec. 1, 1966), 371 F.2d 949 , decided this day adversely to appellant. No attempt will be made here to discuss the facts delineated therein, except to state that appellee here is the agent of the lessor and that appellant, having failed to recover against appellee in a prior contract action, Blanken v. Goldblatt, et al., No. 19,536 (Nov. 23, 1965), is here seeking recovery of the reasonable value of his services by way of quantum meruit.

The District Court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. We believe that appellant’s claims here are governed by the principles announced in today’s Gold-blatt decision. Moreover, it conclusively appears from the record in the two cases that appellant was definitely on notice that he could not look to the appellee for his commission, but rather must look to the lessees.

The decision of the District Court being clearly correct, it is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(recognizing that use of a trade secret gives rise to a cause of action and allowing "suit for any use of the [trade] secret so long as the use has occurred within the statutory period of limitations immediately preceding the bringing of the action")

Heraeus Med. GMBH v. Esschem Inc., 927 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2019)
(use of misappropriated fuel tank designs to create similar fuel tanks)

Heraeus Med. GMBH v. Esschem Inc., 927 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2019)

Cited by 41 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Floyd E. Washington v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, St. Elizabeth's Hospital411 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.553 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
M & T Chemicals, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corp.403 F. Supp. 1145 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)
Lockridge v. Tweco Products, Inc.497 P.2d 131 (Kan. 1972)
Bouchard v. Washington514 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
HOUSER v. FELDMANNo. 2:21-cv-00676 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021)

Most recent

Insulet Corp. v. Eoflow, Co. Ltd.No. 25-1807 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026)
HOUSER v. FELDMANNo. 2:21-cv-00676 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021)
Heraeus Medical GMBH v. Esschem Inc927 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2019)
Scr-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC2011 NCBC 26 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2011)
Grow Company, Inc. v. Chokshi959 A.2d 252 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
Bondpro Corporation v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc.463 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2006)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Samuel Blanken & Co. v. Sigmund Goldblatt, 371 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1966)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list