In re Knapp-Monarch Co.’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.2d 230 · 1961
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Smith v. Pro Football, Inc. (1978), In re Lunsford (1966)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1112 (§ 30 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on In re Malcom · In re Malcom
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judicial notice also may be taken of facts “though they are neither actually notorious nor bound to be judicially known, yet they would be capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration, if desired, that no party would think of imposing a falsity on the tribunal in the face of an intelligent adversary.” [Citing Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition (1940), Vol. IX, Section 2571(3)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Factual matters of which judicial notice is taken”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.