This case involved a copyright infringement dispute between two novelty and giftware companies over a coin bank design featuring a comic girl with four mood-expressing faces. Plaintiff Goldman-Morgen, Inc. claimed ownership of a valid copyright (Registration No. Gp 43212) for its 'Moody Mary Bank,' which it had registered in 1964 after commissioning the design in Japan, and alleged that defendant Dan Brechner & Co. copied and sold an identical version. The court found the copyright valid, noting that the plaintiff had properly affixed the copyright notice to all copies and that the design was original to the plaintiff. It further determined that the defendant's bank was identical in all material respects, establishing infringement through access and copying. The court granted an injunction against further infringement, awarded damages to be determined by a magistrate, costs, and $4,500 in attorney's fees due to the defendant's bad faith in settlement negotiations.
This case involves a maritime collision in dense fog on May 10, 1973, in Ambrose Channel near New York Harbor between the oil tanker Wilmington Getty owned by plaintiff Getty Oil and the vessel Ponce De Leon operated by defendant Transamerican Trailer Transport, Inc. After a bench trial, the court found both vessels at fault for the incident. The reasoning centered on the Wilmington Getty's decision to anchor outside the normal area without placing engines on standby, failing to repeat a security call or properly use radar to avoid the other vessel, combined with the Ponce De Leon's own navigational shortcomings in the congested, low-visibility conditions. The court therefore entered an interlocutory decree apportioning damages 80% to the defendants and 20% to the plaintiff.
The case concerned claims by Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. Corp. against Dun & Bradstreet for breach of a written subscription agreement and an alleged oral cabling agreement, along with negligence, gross negligence, and fraud, based on the defendant's alleged failure to timely mail a credit report regarding a company called Belcrest. The court considered the defendant's motion for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which requires granting the motion when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. It found that an exculpatory clause in the contract barred liability for ordinary negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove gross negligence equivalent to recklessness, but the evidence of the defendant's mailing practices showed no such recklessness or indifference. The court also determined that the alleged oral cabling agreement lacked sufficiently definite terms to form an enforceable contract. Accordingly, the court granted the directed verdict for the defendant on all claims and entered judgment in its favor.
This case involved railroad employees suing their employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for false arrest and malicious prosecution after being arrested for attempted burglary of a boxcar, with the criminal charges later dismissed. The court dismissed the FELA claims, holding that these torts are not actionable under the Act because it is intended to compensate for physical injuries resulting from negligence in employment. The court found questions of fact regarding the malicious prosecution claim under diversity jurisdiction and denied summary judgment on that ground, while noting the false arrest claim was time-barred under state law. It granted leave to amend the complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction for the malicious prosecution claim.
Republic Corporation sued Procedyne Corporation for breach of contract and express/implied warranties, claiming that two electrical control consoles supplied for Polytherm's thermoforming machines failed to maintain temperature within the promised plus or minus 10° F variance, causing damages of $61,217.29. Procedyne denied any breach, asserted that Republic had accepted the consoles as delivered, and counterclaimed for $2,377.10 for post-delivery work. After trial, the court found that Republic failed to prove it was free from fault or that Procedyne breached the contract or warranties, that Republic had unconditionally accepted the consoles, and that any revocation was untimely and unsupported. The court therefore dismissed Republic's complaint and entered judgment for Procedyne on the counterclaim in the amount of $2,377.10 plus interest.
This case involved a breach of contract claim by Joseph Ingrassia against Shell Oil Company over unpaid severance benefits. Ingrassia, a longtime employee in New York, continued working until his role was eliminated during Shell's relocation of operations to Houston in 1970-1971, relying on the company's August 1969 memorandum that promised special severance payments to employees who stayed until their services were no longer needed, provided they were not offered a roughly equivalent position in the New York area. Shell argued that Ingrassia had been offered such a position as Senior Representative—Industrial Sales and thus did not qualify. The court, applying New York law after a bench trial, found that the offered role represented a reduction in rank and responsibilities compared to Ingrassia's prior national sales position, making it not roughly equivalent, and therefore held that Shell breached the agreement by refusing payment. The court awarded Ingrassia the stipulated amount of $19,461.68 plus interest from July 1971.