Rush v. Hillside Buffalo, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 921 · 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. · Leeke v. Timmerman · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo · Salinger v. Colting
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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In failing to supply evidence of the loss of reputation or good will beyond his own conclusory averments, [p]laintiff has not made a sufficient showing that irreparable harm is likely at this point in the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because [p]laintiff has not demonstrated that she will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, the [c]ourt need not consider whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits of her claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not address the other factors necessary for the issuance”
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.