From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

V.E.B. CARL ZEISS, JENA, STLMSTR. v. CLARK

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 1967
384 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

Opinion

No. 20351.

Argued February 14, 1967.

Decided May 8, 1967. Certiorari Denied November 13, 1967. See 88 S.Ct. 334.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Judge.

Mr. Harry I. Rand, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Mr. John C. Eldridge, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U.S. Atty., and Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.


JUDGMENT


This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the order of the District Court, appealed from in this cause be, and it is hereby, affirmed for the reasons stated in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, D.D.C., 40 F.R.D. 318 (1966).


Summaries of

V.E.B. CARL ZEISS, JENA, STLMSTR. v. CLARK

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 8, 1967
384 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Case details for

V.E.B. CARL ZEISS, JENA, STLMSTR. v. CLARK

Case Details

Full title:V.E.B. CARL ZEISS, JENA, Steelmasters, Inc. and Ercona Corporation…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 8, 1967

Citations

384 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

Citing Cases

Verrazzano Trading Corp. v. United States, (1973)

At the expense of repetition, it is emphasized that the series of interrogatories call for specific answers…

Hamilton, Superintendent v. Verdow

v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 729 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318,…