Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 F.2d 474 - Barton v. Rex-Oil Co.

Barton v. Rex-Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

29 F.2d 474 · 1928

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
January 1970
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1970

16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

70192819301940195019601970decided

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 Baglin v. Cusenier Co. · Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co. · Barton v. Rex-Oil Co. · Photoplay Pub. Co. v. La Verne Pub. Co. · Siegert v. Gandolfi

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

  1. ““At the rehearing the appellants contended, and have succeeded in convincing us, that as a matter of fact the only way to prevent such confusion and deception in this case is to enjoin the appellee from using these words as the name of its product and from using them so positioned, spelled and printed on its cartons and advertising matter as to resemble a name for its product. Moreover, the complainants 'have satisfied us that on a definite and unequivocal finding of fact of this kind the law affords the remedy of injunction against the use of words which in instances such as this have acquired only a secondary meaning when those words are used as the name of a product as distinguished from their use in describing it.””
    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.