Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
| Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 9–10, 1944 Decided May 15, 1944 | |
| Full case name | Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. |
| Citations | 322 U.S. 238 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel Atlas Glass Co., 39 F.2d 111 (W.D. Pa. 1930); 59 F.2d 399 (3d Cir. 1932); 125 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1941); 137 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1943). |
| Holding | |
| Equitable relief can be granted by any court in decided cases where intrinsic fraud on the court perpetrated by officers of the court was discovered after expiration of term as long as parties apply to circuit court for leave. Third Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Black, joined by Douglas, Murphy, Jackson, Rutledge |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Reed, Frankfurter, Stone (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| Common law of civil procedure | |
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), is a much cited 1944 decision of the United States Supreme Court dealing with fraud on the Patent Office. A widely quoted statement in the Court's opinion is: "The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud." Although the fraud occurred in the late 1920s, the facts became public only much later in the Government's antitrust trial in United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.