Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
305 U.S. 315 · 1938
Citation profile
407 federal appellate · 97 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,086 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966), United States v. American Trucking Associations (1940)
407 federal appellate · 97 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedNu-Enamel Corp. v. Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Caminetti v. United States · Sorrells v. United States · Hurn v. Oursler · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Crooks v. Harrelson
Cited together with Hurn v. Oursler · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · William Warner Co v. Eli Lilly & Co · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.
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 1,086 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o construe statutes so as to avoid results glaringly absurd, has long been a judicial function.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““the alleged infringement of the trade-mark, persists to deal with all grounds supporting it, including unfair competition with the marked article. The cause of action is the inference with the exclusive right to use the mark ‘Nu-Enamel.’ If it is a properly registered trade-mark, a ground to support the cause of action is violation of the Trade-Mark Act. If it is not' a properly registered trade-mark, the ground is unfair competition at common law. The facts supporting a suit for infringement and one for unfair competition are substantially the same. They constitute and make plain the wrong complained of, the violation of the right to exclusive use.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * This establishes, entirely apart from any trade-mark act, the common law right of the Nu-Enamel Corporation to be free from the competitive use of these words as a trade-mark or trade name. * * *»”
3 later decisions 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.