Aerosonic Corporation and MacLeod Instrument Corporation v. Trodyne Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
402 F.2d 223 · 1968
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 67 Ill. App. 3d 869 - Crinkley v. Dow Jones & Co. (1979), Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Pillsbury Co. (1971)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Basically, actionable disparagement is a “statement about a competitor’s goods which is untrue or misleading and which is made to influence or tends to influence not to buy. ‘Nims, Unfair Competition by False Statement or Disparagement, 19 Cornell L.Q. 63, 70.’ ” Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Harold E. Trent Co., 3 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 920 . Mere puffing of one’s product, claiming its superiority over a competitor’s product, is not disparagement.”
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.