257 F. Supp. 2d 621 - Gmurzynska v. Hutton’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1125 · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · Sanders v. City of Brady, Texas
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and where doubt exists, they are resolved in plaintiff’s favor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[L]egal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it does not follow that conclusory allegations and speculation . . . will defeat such a motion.”
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.