TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Optical Company, C'bon, Inc. And Cool-Ray, Inc. v. Rayex Corporation and Monaco Optical Corporation

AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY, C’Bon, Inc. and Cool-Ray, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RAYEX CORPORATION and Monaco Optical Corporation, Defendants-Appellants

Am. Optical Co., C'bon v. Rayex Corp. & Monaco Optical Corp., 394 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 26, 1968
Docket
Nos. 447, Docket 31645
Judges
Hays, Anderson, Feinberg
Citations
394 F.2d 155157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 4651968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7175

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles H. Tenney, J., entered May 23, 1967, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for contempt for failure • to comply with a preliminary injunction, and denied appellants’ cross-motion to vacate that injunction. The preliminary injunction in this action for unfair competition was granted by Judge Tenney on July 1, 1966, pursuant to his opinion reported at 266 F.Supp. 342 (S.D.N.Y.1966). Appellants took no appeal from that order. Instead of seeking to obtain “a trial of the action on the merits,” see Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., appellants attempted four and one-half months later to have the preliminary injunction vacated despite their earlier failure to appeal. Appellants conceded at oral argument before us that their cross-motion to vacate the preliminary injunction was not based on changes in circumstances which occurred after the injunction was entered. It is clear that by their cross-motion appellants were merely trying to relitigate on a fuller record preliminary injunction issues already decided by Judge Tenney. We affirm *156 the judge’s refusal to vacate the injunction. As to the contempt, there was ample support for the judge’s finding that appellants’ “conduct has been in blatant disregard of the * * * preliminary injunction.” We will not further consider at this stage of the proceeding the validity of the underlying preliminary injunction from which appellants took no appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1970: 21974: 21976: 21977: 11978: 11981: 11985: 11986: 11989: 21997: 12006: 12021: 12023: 12025: 12026: 219702026peak 1970 · 2

Most recent

  1. Cynthia Ramos v. Kamar H. SamuelsNo. 1:26-cv-03128 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2026)
  2. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology CoO., LTD.No. 1:25-cv-04183 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026)
  3. City of New York v. LopezNo. 1:21-cv-07862 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025)
  4. Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule ANo. 1:22-cv-10377 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2023)
  5. JLM Couture, Inc. v. GutmanNo. 1:20-cv-10575 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021)
  6. Centennial Broadcasting, LLC v. Burns433 F. Supp. 2d 730 (W.D. Va. 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

DepthCaseCited by
Am. Optical Co. v. Rayex Corp., 266 F. Supp. 342 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list