Rodgers v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. · Steele v. Bulova Watch 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Second Circuit has noted that it has never applied the Lanham Act to extraterritorial conduct absent a substantial effect on U.S. commerce.”
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.