Blue Cross Blue Shield Mutual of Ohio v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Eisen v. Thompson (2007), 4 F. Supp. 2d 710 - Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather (1998)
3 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
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Hormel v. Helvering · Beecham v. United States · 125 Ill. App. 3d 972 - Dayan v. McDonald's Corp. · United States v. Hatter
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant— (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or col-orably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“freedom of contract entails the freedom not to contract, except in the case of innkeepers, common carriers, and certain other `public service companies,' and except as restricted by antitrust, antidiscrimination and other statutes.”
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.