Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
254 F.3d 1041 · 2001
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Allen Engineering Corporation v. Bartell Industries Inc (2002), Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Chemque, Inc. (Formerly Known as Chemque Canada, Ltd.) and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants-Cross (2002)
37 federal appellate · 19 district ·
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Salve Regina College v. Russell · SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. · Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. · Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nly an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under 102(b).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general proposition, we will look to the Uniform Commercial Code ('UCC') to define whether, as in this case, a communication or series of communications rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any given circumstance, who is the offeror, and what constitutes a definite offer, requires closely looking at the language of the proposal itself. Language suggesting a legal offer, such as “I offer” or “I promise” can be contrasted with language suggesting more preliminary negotiations, such as “I quote” or “are you interested.” Differing phrases are evidence of differing intent, but no one phrase is necessarily controlling.”
5 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.