No. 98-5136’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably 134 S. Ct. 1377 - Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014), Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
13 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Bennett v. Spear
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury: Is the injury of a type that Congress sought to redress in providing a private remedy for violations of the Lanham Act? (2) The directness or indirectness of the asserted injury. (3) The proximity or remoteness of the party to the alleged injurious conduct. (4) The speculativeness of the damages claim. (5) The risk of duplicative damages or complexity in apportioning damages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If every retailer had a cause of action for false adverting regardless of the amount in controversy, regardless of any impact on the retailer’s ability to compete, regardless of any impact on the retailer’s good will or reputation, and regardless of the remote nature of the injury suffered, the impact on the federal courts could be significant.” Conte, 165 F.3d at 235 . 8 . In addition, Plaintiff brought a disparagement claim under the Lanham Act. In relevant part, the Lanham Act provides,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he aim of this form of judicial self-governance is to determine whether the plaintiff is `a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.'”
2 later decisions 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.