First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. v. Depinet’s Empirical Analysis
11 F.3d 641 · 1993
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 23923y Schachner v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio (1996), Berger v. City of Mayfield Heights (2001)
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 508 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Eisenstadt v. Baker · Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 · Ristaino v. Ross · American Can Company v. Mansukhani M · Fleischut v. Nixon Detroit Diesel, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An abuse of discretion exists when the district court applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[P]laintiffs must show that defendants would have disregarded a direct court order and disposed of the goods within the time it would take for a hearing... [and] must support such assertions by showing that the adverse party has a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.