TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leonard T. Chapman v. Harry F

Chapman v. Harry F, 937 F.2d 622 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 30, 1991
Docket
No. 90-1445_1
Citations
937 F.2d 6221991 WL 1143641991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29950
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

937 F.2d 622

Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. Leonard T. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry F. MANBECK, Jr., Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Defendant-Appellee, v. DESMAR CORPORATION and Meccanica Italiana Srl, Appellants.

No. 90-1445.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 30, 1991.

Before MARKEY * , MICHEL and RADER, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

RADER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER 1

On September 12, 1990, we stayed disposition of Leonard T. Chapman's motion to dismiss appeal no. 90-1445 until appeal no. 90-1446 was decided. Appeal no. 90-1446 has now been decided. 1 2

In view thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

3

Chapman's motion to dismiss appeal no. 90-1445 is granted.

* Judge Markey was a member of the panel deciding appeal no. 90-1446. However, he retired on April 30, 1991 and, therefore, did not participate in this order 1

Appeal no. 90-1466 was from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denying Desmar Corporation, et al.'s motion for leave to intervene. In appeal no. 90-1445, Desmar sought review of the merits of the district court case. In view of our April 16, 1991 affirmance of the district court's denial of the motion for leave to intervene, we determine that Desmar's appeal of the merits should be dismissed

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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