Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 267 - Advent Electronics, Inc. v. Buckman

Advent Electronics, Inc. v. Buckman’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 267 · 1997

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
July 2011
most recently cited

11 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2011

11 federal appellate ·

140199720002010decided

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 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co. · American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd. · Sarnoff v. American Home Products Corp. · Original Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cookies, Ltd.

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In determining whether to enter a preliminary injunction, a district court should consider: whether there is a reasonable likelihood that plaintiff will prevail at trial; whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law or will be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not issued; whether the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may inflict on the defendant; and whether the granting of the preliminary injunction will deserve the public interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “discretionary acts of weighing evidence or balancing equitable factors.”
    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.