Aerotech, Inc. v. Estes’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.3d 1523 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 20 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Pacheco v. Mineta (2006), Brickwood Contractors, Incorporated v. Datanet Engineering, Incorporated John v. Cignatta, Brickwood Contractors, Incorporated v. Datanet Engineering, Incorporated John v. Cignatta (2004)
23 federal appellate · 20 district · 8 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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co. · Voinovich v. Quilter · Schwarz v. Folloder · White v. American Airlines, 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant may not recover attorneys' fees when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action with prejudice absent 'exceptional cireumstances.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[When a plaintiff dismisses an action with prejudice, attorneys' fees are usually not a proper condition of dismissal because the defendant cannot be made to defend again.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court has no power to impose terms and conditions if a plaintiff properly dismisses by notice under Rule 41(a)(1). Nor may the plaintiff seek a conditional dismissal under that portion of the rule. If the dismissal is by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1), the parties will negotiate the conditions on which they agree to the stipulation. Accordingly, the authority of the court to require “such terms and conditions as the court deems proper” is limited to a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). Although the power to set terms and conditions is vested in the court, the plaintiff may move for dismissal on conditions stated in the plaintiffs motion; under these circumstances, the court either must grant the motion on the conditions offered or deny the motion. Dismissal would not be voluntary if more onerous conditions were imposed; The more common practice, however, is for the plaintiff simply to move for dismissal without mentioning conditions. The trial court then will specify on what conditions it will allow dismissal. If the conditions are too onerous, the plaintiff need not accept the dismissal on those terms. The terms and conditions imposed by the district court upon the granting of a motion for a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) generally are for the protection of the defendant; although, if one of several plaintiffs moves for the dismissal, conditions may be imposed for the protection of the remaining plaintiffs as well. The court may dismiss without ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.