Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 F.2d 892 - Koufakis v. Carvel

Koufakis v. Carvel’s Empirical Analysis

425 F.2d 892 · 1970

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
2
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. (1982), Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross (1977)

63 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

45019701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338

Relies on Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · General Inv Co v. Lake Shore & M S Ry Co · Walker v. Sheldon

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

  1. “and virtuous man of modest resources against a powerful and unscrupulous man of untold wealth, and remarked frequently that the defendant had failed to testify. Id. at 902.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A mistrial should have been declared on account of these remarks [suggesting that the defendant should respond in damages because it was rich and the plaintiff poor].”
    2 later decisions 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.