Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Diamond Vs. Bradley

Diamond vs Bradley

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-09-1981
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/105031

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
450 U.S. 381
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Diamond

Respondent

Bradley

Excerpt

diamond v. bradley - 450 u.s. 381 (1981) u.s. supreme court diamond v. bradley, 450 u.s. 381 (1981) 450 u.s. 381 diamond, commissioner of patents and trademarks v. bradley et al. certiorari to the united states court of customs and patent appeals. no. 79-855. argued october 14, 1980. decided march 9, 1981. 600 f.2d 807 , affirmed by an equally divided court. deputy solicitor general wallace argued the cause for petitioner. with him on the briefs were solicitor general mccree, assistant attorney general litvack, harriet s. shapiro, robert b. nicholson, frederic freilicher, joseph f. nakamura, and thomas e. lynch. nicholas prasinos argued the cause for respondents. with him on the briefs were faith f. driscoll, henry l. hanson, and ronald t. reiling. * [ footnote * ] edward s. irons, mary helen sears, and robert p. beshar filed a brief for national semiconductor corp. as amicus curiae urging reversal. briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by donald r. dunner, kenneth e. kuffner, and travis gordon white for the american patent law association, inc.; by reed c. lawlor and james w. geriak for the los angeles patent association; and by morton c. jacobs for applied data research, inc., et al. william james beard and john f. tregoning filed a brief for halliburton services as amicus curiae. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court. the chief justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. page 450 u.s. 381, 382

Full Judgment

DIAMOND v. BRADLEY - 450 U.S. 381 (1981)
U.S. Supreme Court DIAMOND v. BRADLEY, 450 U.S. 381 (1981) 450 U.S. 381

DIAMOND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. BRADLEY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.

No. 79-855.

Argued October 14, 1980.
Decided March 9, 1981.

600 F.2d 807 , affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Litvack, Harriet S. Shapiro, Robert B. Nicholson, Frederic Freilicher, Joseph F. Nakamura, and Thomas E. Lynch.

Nicholas Prasinos argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were Faith F. Driscoll, Henry L. Hanson, and Ronald T. Reiling. *

[ Footnote * ] Edward S. Irons, Mary Helen Sears, and Robert P. Beshar filed a brief for National Semiconductor Corp. as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Donald R. Dunner, Kenneth E. Kuffner, and Travis Gordon White for the American Patent Law Association, Inc.; by Reed C. Lawlor and James W. Geriak for the Los Angeles Patent Association; and by Morton C. Jacobs for Applied Data Research, Inc., et al.

William James Beard and John F. Tregoning filed a brief for Halliburton Services as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 450 U.S. 381, 382



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial