Foster v. American Machine & Foundry Co.
Foster v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 419 U.S. 833 (1974)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 11 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(refusing to award throughput royalty in patent dispute because of relevant industry practice)
-
(many of judge’s comments were out of the presence of the jury, were provoked by the conduct of counsel, and were directed against both sides)
-
(indictment for obstruction of justice by failing to produce documents before grand jury sufficient though it fails to specify in what way conduct was done corruptly)
-
(“It has been held that defendant’s state of mind does not provide a defense to the Section 7215 misdemeanor charge”)
-
(“Judges, while expected to possess more than the average amount of self-restraint, are still only human. They do not possess limitless ability, once passion is aroused, to resist provocation.”)
-
(on direct appeal of a jury verdict, the court noted that “the printed record cannot convey the atmosphere, the tones of voice of judge, counsel and parties, and their facial expressions.”)
-
(defendants were sufficiently apprised of the charge in the obstruction of justice count to enable them to prepare a defense)
Cited by 73 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.