Micro Data Base Systems, Inc. v. Dharma Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 649 · 1998
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Miller v. J.D. Abrams Inc. (1998), Salton Incorporated v. Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Bv & Bv (2004)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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 Salve Regina College v. Russell · Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. · Trandes Corporation v. Guy F. Atkinson Company, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It's as if [the defendant], having stolen a program from [the plaintiff], inserted a bug in it as a result of which the program didn't work, and buyers blamed [the plaintiff] and refused to do any further business with it. That would be a consequence of misappropriation, and [the plaintiff] would be entitled to the foreseeable damages flowing from that consequence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the UCC, goods are deemed accepted if the buyer (or, we think it clear though we cannot find any case, its delegate) fails, after having had a reasonable amount of time in which to inspect them, to communicate its rejection to the seller. This is a eommonsensical rule. The seller is entitled to know where he stands, so that he can cure any defects in the goods. In addition, the rule saves on paperwork by allowing silence to count as acceptance. And it also discourages buyers who after receiving the goods decide they don’t want them after all from trying to get out of their contract by making phony claims of noncon forming tender, perhaps when it is too late to verify the claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The loss of future business with [the third party] was a foreseeable consequence of [the defendant's] misconduct, and so [the plaintiff] was entitled to seek damages for that consequence. Consequential damages, as long as they are reasonably foreseeable, are the norm in tort cases . . . and the misappropriation of a trade secret is a tort.”
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.