51 F. Supp. 2d 554 - SNA, Inc. v. Array’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1119 (§ 37 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Brandenburg v. Ohio · Whitney v. People of State of California · Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. · Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs also argue that through their internet sites, defendants interfere with plaintiffs' prospective contracts because prospective customers will see the sites and be dissuaded from ever contacting SNA. This conclusory speculation certainly cannot form the basis of an action, because there is no evidence of a reasonable probability that a contract will be realized with the hypothetical internet user, nor any of economic loss to plaintiff caused by defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has defined `prospective contractual relation' as `something less than a contractual right, something more than a mere hope.' In short, it is `a reasonable probability' that contractual relations will be realized.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ued v. Ets
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.