Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; Aberdeen Motor Supply Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; and F. E. Rowe Sales Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al., 1941 — 312 U.S. 654 · caselaw · US
General
Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; Aberdeen Motor Supply Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; and F. E. Rowe Sales Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.
312 U.S. 654·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 9.
No. 10.
No. 11.
Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; Aberdeen Motor Supply Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.; and F. E. Rowe Sales Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. et al.
February 3, 1941.
[MAJORITY]
Ordered that the opinion in these eases be amended as follows:
1. Strike from the second complete paragraph, page 2, lines 5 and 6, the phrases “one of several claims” and “which the Court sustained”.
2. In line 18 of the same paragraph substitute the word “one” for the word “another”.
3. In the fourth line from the bottom of page 3 insert the words “without prejudice” before the word “of”.
4. Modify the third, fourth, and fifth lines from the bottom of the first complete paragraph on page 9 to read: “found the elements of the invention which it described but in which, absent the flexible web element, it found no invention. In view of such want of invention and of the prior art the only material difference between the amended and the allowed claims is the presence in the former of the flexible web element and, in consequence of the surrender of the former particularizing”.
The petition for rehearing and the motion to remand are denied.