Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 F.1d 232 - Taylor v. Bostick

Taylor v. Bostick’s Empirical Analysis

299 F. 232 · 1924

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 1933
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company · Ex parte Automatic Switch Co. · Leschen Sons Rope Company v. Broderick Bascom Rope Company · Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. Stark

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

  1. ““It is a well-settled general rule of law that a trader may not monopolize a particular color, and that color alone, unaccompanied by any distinguishing sign, seal, or symbol, is not sufficient to constitute a trade-mark.””
    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.