ECash Technologies, Inc. v. Guagliardo’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department · 19 Cal. 4th 1106 - Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity · Branch v. Tunnell · Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. · 4 Cal. 4th 1187 - Rubin v. Green
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Also, a court may consider documents which are not physically attached to the complaint but ‘whose contents are alleged in [the] complaint and whose authenticity no party questions.'”
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.