Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 F.2d 962 - Stauffer v. Exley

Stauffer v. Exley’s Empirical Analysis

184 F.2d 962 · 1950

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. (1952), Van Arsdale v. Hollinger (1968)

71 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

680195019601970198019902000decided

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. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653

Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Wickard v. Filburn · Hurn v. Oursler · United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n · Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co

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

  1. “available so far as they may be appropriate in repressing acts of unfair competition”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he district ... courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction ... of all actions arising under [the Lanham Act], without regard to the amount in controversy or to diversity or lack of diversity of the citizenship of the parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Subsection (b) is added and is intended to avoid `piecemeal' litigation to enforce common-law and statutory copyright, patent and trademark rights by specifically permitting such enforcement in a single civil action in the district court.”
    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.