FITZGERALD

v.

STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

Citator

Cited By

• In re Alodex Corp. Sec. Litig. Marlin Cole v. Alodex Corp., 533 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1976)
  …om v. Sexton, supra at 1238-40. This inquiry and conclusion are compelled because this court has held that scienter need not be proved in a Rule 10b-5 case to establish liability. Myzel v. Fields, 386 F. 2d 718, 734-35 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1043, 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968). Plaintiffs contend that scienter is not required in common law fraud actions in Iowa where the defendant’s “special situation or means of knowledge were such as to make it his duty to know as to the truth or…
• Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Prods., Inc., 684 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1982)
  …ppeal, Lucerne again insists that the Gawron patent is directed to obvious subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Gawron patent has been held nonobvious in Skil Corp. v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 412 F. 2d 821 (7th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 394, 24 L.Ed.2d 257 (1969). In that litigation, the district court had found the Gawron patent invalid for obviousness, relying upon the rejection by the Patent Office of identical claims contained in the Lucerne application. The Seventh C…