Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell Electronics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2022
3 district · 2 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))
Relies on Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Gillette Co. v. Miner · Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. · Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Richardson-Vicks Inc · Truswal Systems Corp. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Obviously, if the sought-after documents are not relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then any burden whatsoever imposed upon [the subpoenaed non-party] would be by definition 'undue.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.