Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the harm suffered by the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. League of Women Voters of Florida v. Browning · 410 F. Supp. 2d 1324 - Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ga.

2. “(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. North American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc. · 685 F. Supp. 2d 1360 - Atlanta Allergy and Asthma Clinic, Pa v. Allergy & Asthma of Atlanta, LLC

3. “(1) [Plaintiffs'] advertisements are false or misleading; (2) the advertisements deceived, or had the capacity to deceive, consumers; (3) the deception had a material effect on purchasing decisions; (4) the misrepresented advertisements affect interstate commerce; and (5) [Defendants have] been or [are] likely to be injured as a result of the false advertising.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 295 F. Supp. 2d 1334 - Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB · 664 F. Supp. 2d 1246 - Star-Brite Distributing, Inc. v. Kop-Coat, Inc.