The following excerpt is from Atlanta Corporation v. Olesen, 124 F. Supp. 482 (S.D. Cal. 1954):
Atlanta contends there was no proof of intent to defraud and that there was error in the examiner's refusal to permit Atlanta to offer evidence on the question of intent to defraud. Reilly v. Pinkus, supra, disposes of this problem. There the court said, 338 U.S. at page 276, 70 S.Ct. at page 114:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.